the daily snivel

 

Someone randomly forwarded me this e-mail. It had the look and feel of an unverified and inaccurate internet chain mail, but because it dealt with the upcoming Federal election I felt it was worthy to note and comment upon. A quick Google search reveals that a number of other people have revealed this e-mail as well. The website below has a comments forum and a number of posters have debunked a lot of the claims made on behalf of the Conservative Party.
The spam article is dealt with fairly well in comments at the following blog:
http://www.darrenbarefoot.com/archives/000808.html

My own comments follow the political spam itself...

On Saturday, June 26, 2004, at 03:50 pm, William wrote:

Interesting point of view...

Forwarded message:

My name is Alan Robberstad I am a Canadian.
One voter out of millions of Canadian voters.

Paul Martin is no friend of mine.
Liberal governments have not made my life any better.
Liberal governments have made the future worse for my children.

Jean Chretien and the Liberal Party became Prime Minister many years ago.
Guess who was the Liberal Finance Minister.....Paul Martin...LEST WE FORGET Since 1993

(1) My taxes have increased.
(2) My family's share of the national debt has increased.
(3) My personal expenses have increased.
(4) My waiting time to see a doctor has increased.
(5) My concerns for my family's safety have increased.
(6) My costs to educate my children have increased.
(7) Government interference in my life has increased.
(8) My personal debt has increased.
(9) My income has stayed more or less the same.
(10) My savings have decreased.
(11) The buying power of my dollar, in Canada, has decreased.
(12) The value of my dollar, in the U.S., has decreased.
(13) My trust of elected officials has decreased.
(14) My trust in the justice system has decreased.
(15 )My trust in the immigration system has decreased.
(16) My hope that a Liberal won't waste my tax dollars has decreased.
(17 )My dreams for a better future for my kids, in Canada, have disappeared.

That is my story since the Liberals came to power.

I am not voting for Paul Martin's Liberals.
I am voting against Paul Martin and his Liberal Party on June 28, 2004.

I am voting for Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party.

Do I like the Conservatives?
Not particularly......I don't really like Politics.
I am not political by nature.
I am not passionate about politics.
I am a middle age guy (48).
I live in a small house on a fairly quiet street in Edmonton.
I have a wife, Kathy, and two children (ages 19 and 17).
I have no pets.
I am a middle class man.
I don't usually say too much.

Until now.

Now I am going to say something!

In 35 of the past 37 years, Canada has been ruled by
(1) Pierre Trudeau - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(2) Brian Mulroney - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(3) Jean Chretien - a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec.
(4) And now we are going to vote for Paul Martin???? -
a multi-millionaire lawyer from Quebec???

The leader of the Conservative party, Stephen Harper, is
(1) Not a lawyer.
(2) Not a multi-millionaire.
(3) Not from Quebec.

Stephen Harper says that the Conservative party will
(1) Reduce my taxes.
(2) Pay off the national debt as fast as they can.
(3) Shrink the size and influence of the federal government.

That's good enough for me.
I'm going to give the Conservative party a chance with my vote.

But wait!
Paul Martin is now saying the same thing.
My mother told me forty years ago "Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me!"

The Liberals have had 34 years to be financially responsible.
Remember, Jean Chretien was Trudeau's Finance Minister.
Remember also, Paul Martin was Jean Chretien's Finance Minister .
These people have been raising my taxes for thirty four years.
They have been mis-spending my tax dollars for 34 years.

34 years!

And now Paul Martin says he'll stop taxing and spending.
No way.

Thank you for reading my story so far!

Why am I telling my story to you?

Although I feel alone, I know that I am not alone.
Your story may be similar to mine.
And you may also feel alone.
One small voter in the midst of millions of voters.

What can you and I do together to change things?

Here is my idea.
Lets you and I join up together.
Just you and I.
Together.
As a small team of two.

How can you and I fight a huge political machine?

You and I have two things that we can use
(1) Our individual personal connections.
(2) The Internet.

The Internet is supposed to be this global zing tool, right?
Let's put it to use.

I have 27 Canadians in my personal e-mail address book.
I am sending this e-mail to each of them.

I'm asking you to do two things
(1) Forward this e-mail to every Canadian in your own address book.
(2) Vote against Paul Martin and the Liberal Party on June 28.

Vote for the Conservative candidate in your riding.

I have probably written this e-mail too late.
As I said I am not politically adroit.
I feel like Peter Finch, in the 1976 movie "Network", when he shouted "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!"

Please, forward the e-mail RIGHT NOW!!

As I type these last few words the voting begins in less than 18 days.
432 hours till voting begins.
I hope the Internet is as fast as some people claim it is.

This may not work.
This e-mail may "fizzle out" and go nowhere.
But you and I will have tried, won't we have?

My best wishes to you.
My best wishes to Canadians everywhere.

My thanks to David Stokes from Toronto
He actually wrote this just (5) days before the last federal election in 2000.
Fool me once - shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me!"

Let's address a few specific gripes with some actual factual points:

The author of the political SPAM writes that his taxes increased during the past 11 years of Liberal governance, but ya know what? The biggest real-world tax increase for most Canadians came with the advent of the GST, a 7% sales tax charged for most goods and services in each and every province. The GST was implemented by the Progressive Conservative Party. The Liberal Party was voted into power in 1993 on a promise to abolish the GST. It never did this. I never voted for either party, however, so I consider it a draw. In any case, average federal personal income tax levels have actually decreased. Indeed, many on the left lament the cuts to social programs made necessary by Mr. Martin's emphasis on tax cutting and deficit reduction. If the author of the article has complaints about his taxation levels, he should look to his provincial government (under Ralph Klein's conservatives, since the author claims to be an Albertan) and his municipal government.

The author claims that Mr. Martin is from Quebec. In fact he is from Windsor, Ontario. The author wants us to believe that Quebec has a disproportionate influence in Canadian politics, and that choosing Mr. Harper would put an end to a long string of rich politicians from Quebec holding this office. In the past forty-seven years we have had just three Prime Ministers from Quebec: Mr. Chretien, Mr. Mulroney, and Mr. Trudeau.

It's hard to address concerns like: "My trust in the justice system has decreased" -- based on what? Too hard, or too lenient? In terms of concerns for one's family's safety, well, violent crime has been steadily declining in Canada. Other concerns like "My personal debt has increased" and "My costs to educate my children have increased" seem only tangentally related to the Federal Government. If anything, a Conservative government that brings in private healthcare and cuts spending is going to increase your debt, since you'll be paying for more services directly. There's no way that a Conservative Government, which is committed to increasing the size of Canada's Armed Forces, using the notwithstanding clause to overturn Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and has flirted with the idea of setting up a Parliamentary Committee to review and decide upon whether controversial judicial decisions are rightly decided (and act to remedy "wrong" decisions) will decrease neither the size, cost or influence of the Federal Government. Sounds to me like we're well on the way to an increase.

Suffice to say, everyone should vote their conscience on June 28, but those who vote for the Conservative Party based on Mr. Robberstad's sloppy reasoning above are dinks.
 

 

This was an interesting news item that only came to my attention yesterday when one of the law students who worked for the Montreal defence counsel assisting Mr. Alalul mentioned it to me. I was helping her move, and as we all cooled down on her new balcony in the lovely evening air and sipped water, she told us the fascinating story of her role in seeing justice done. The lawyer told my friend yesterday that she used her arguments against the charges word for word in court.

The story below is of a young Palestinian university student who was charged with uttering a death threat (contrary to s. 264.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada) after making what sounded like a truly innocuous remark to a Jewish man he was having an argument with.

Acquitted! Palestinian Concordia student Nidal Alalul cleared after bogus charges by Hillel members

by Jaggi Singh

MONTREAL, June 11, 2004 -- This morning in Montreal's Municipal Courthouse, Concordia student Nidal Alalul was acquitted of the charge of "uttering a death threat". Judge Antonio Discepola, who is regarded as one of the most pro-prosecution judges in Montreal, nonetheless found Nidal not guilty with a terse four word statement: "The information is dismissed." In his written judgement, Discepola found Nidal's testimony
very credible, while casting doubt on the accounts provided by the complainants, who were members of Hillel Concordia and Birthright.

On March 11, 2003 -- several months after Benjamin Netanyahu was shut down by pro-Palestinian students at Concordia University -- Nidal was arrested
on campus and charged with "uttering a death threat". Nidal, a member of Solidarity for Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR) had been in an argument with Schlomo Lifshitz, 47, of Birthright, which offers free trips to Israel to Jewish youth (in his judgement, Discepola describes Birthright
as "a non-governmental organization funded by the Israeli government"). Schlomo was tabling with Hillel, and began to bait Nidal, who is a foreign
student orginally from Nablus. When Schlomo said that Nidal had "a weak personality", Nidal replied: "I'll be famous in two years ... a lawyer or
a politician ... and you'll be selling falafel."

Nidal's comment was interpreted as a death threat, with Schlomo, members of Hillel, Concordia security, and eventually the Crown attorney assuming
that Nidal meant that he wanted to be a suicide bomber. The overtly racist assumption throughout the trial was that the only way for a Palestinian
youth to be famous is by becoming a suicide bomber. That racist assumption was backed by Concordia University, whose security guards detained Nidal,
and did not attempt to get his side of the story. Moreover, Concordia University lawyers attended the trial, helping the Crown make her case, in a clear show of bias against Nidal. (Similarly, Concordia lawyers have been helping the Crown in cases against other pro-Palestinian students and their allies, in relation to the September 9, 2002 protests at Concordia University, with little success. In one case, a defendant has already been acquitted of five charges before even having to present a defence!)

Written complaints against Nidal were made by several members of Hillel, including Rachel Guy (who now sits on Concordia student council). Rachel
testified against Nidal, but her credibility was severely weakened when she conveniently forgot to admit that she actually wrote Schlomo's written
statement to the police for him.

That Nidal was never charged is another example of the biased treatment of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students, and their allies, by Concordia University. Nonetheless, Nidal's acquittal -- as well as other recent acquittals and dropped charges -- indicates that victories are possible in court, especially when the charges are so racist and bogus in the first
place.

To stay in touch about ongoing court proceedings related to Concordia University, please e-mail noii-montreal@resist.ca.

-- JBS

The article was e-mailed by Jaggi Singh, a Canadian activist of great notoriety, but despite the subjective rhetoric in his note, and the contentious milleu of the neverending Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the background, the facts of the case are almost exactly as my friend relayed them. This is a fascinating story of what happens when hidden assumptions and fears about other groups of people get the better of us. In the climate of suspicion that has followed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, it is all too easy to twist an innocuous quip (that surely would have been allowed to pass had I said it to someone as a snarky retort) into a threat of violence.

Charges can be laid in an instant by authorities, and in the meantime lives are put on hold. Nidal Alalul was unable to attend school while the charge pended against him, and was subjected to the great stigma of being a criminal accused (and a supporter of terrorism no less). It's hard to see this as a case of an honest mistake by authorities. There is a bias revealed that I find troublesome. Would you, as a police officer or a Crown Attorney, press charges in a case such as this? And what do these actions say about the security guards and staff of Concordia University, who arrested and assisted in the prosecution of Nidal Alalul? Without ever daring to wade into the battle of ideas between those favouring Israel and those favouring Palestine, this strikes me as a tremendous step backwards in promoting a sense of fairness and integrity in the justice system.

If it could happen to him, it could happen to you. And that's why I'm going to be a defence counsel when I grow up.
 

  No good deed goes unpunished

... a reference to the multitude of deep scratches on my face, caused by my sister's (normally sweet) cat, Peter, who I was cat-sitting this weekend along with the kitten whilst my sister was away camping. The kitten drives Peter crazy, and as I was getting ready to leave, he ran out the apartment door and down the stairs in the hopes that he would be let outside. Instead, I ran down after him, and scooped him up into my arms so that carry him upstairs. I wasn't prepared to leave him outside, alone, for any number of hours.

As soon as I picked the cat up, he started growling and scratching and went right for the face. I ran upstairs with the snarling beastie, chucked him in the front door, closed it and locked it, and left. Bleeding profusely.

As I walked down the street, blood trickling down my lip, I looked back to see the cat in the window, glowering at me.

Meanwhile, today is call day for 2005-2006 articling applications, and every second year law student spent the morning by their telephones, hoping that they would receive a job offer from a law firm. I'd had five really promising interviews, including one with the Ottawa Crown Attorney's Office, and I had high hopes that I'd be set up with a position in Ottawa to article at after I graduated. The articling process is an absolutely essential part of your transition from a mere law graduate to a practicing lawyer (along with passing the Bar admissions courses), and is effectively a ten-month apprenticeship under a senior lawyer at a law firm.

And nobody called for me.

Actually, that's not true. The firm I had the highest hopes for did call, but only to tell me that they'd offered the position to someone else, who'd accepted it immediately, but that I was really high on their list, though.

Sigh.

What's worse, is that nobody I know got a position in Ottawa today. So many brilliant people are in the lurch today, and now we have to go through the whole disheartening process again to apply for Toronto positions.

Oh well. Toronto ho.