Savant

Of course... And we all know that since booze and cigarettes are legal there isn't a single instance of criminals selling 'underground' or 'contraband' booze or cigarettes. AmIrite? Eh?

I want to chime in here, since although I think The Star was highly unprofessional in how they acted, I do think they had a 'right' to cover the story. However, there was no real need to visit the property to cover a 'zoning issue'. Especially when you consider that there is no guarantee that Rob Ford will even get his request approved. (since the city rarely agrees to sell off parkland) So run a print story and be done with it. Don't go to the guy's house and peek in his yard. If worse comes to worse, go to his house during the day. The Star *knows* that they and Ford don't get along. Why antagonise him further? There was no need to 'poke around' at his house.

Do you know what invasion of privacy means? Try 35 to 50 meters from the sidewalk to the spot where he was located, if he was to travel on 'public land'.

He was behind Rob Ford's fence at the rear of his property. While the reporter was standing on public land, that doesn't mean he has the right to look into Rob Ford's back yard. As stated, this reporter was supposedly doing a story about land Rob Ford wanted to buy, yet that land was nowhere near where the reporter was. The reporter had to go through bushes to get to the spot where he was. All it takes is a quick trip to google to see the land Rob Ford wants to buy, without any privacy breach at all. (People can see a pic of the property in question here. It's the land to the SIDE of Rob Ford's house. Roughly to where the sidewalk ends. An alternate "bird's eye" view can be seen on Bing here. Or a 'winter' aerial view can be seen here. This last view lets you see the property line more clearly.) Here's a mock up picture. The light blue represents Rob Ford's current property line. The light green is the land he wants to annex. The red circle is where The Star reporter was. The reporter was nohwere near the land in question.

It's not. Have you looked at it with Bing or Google?I'm sorry, you are incorrect. The property is indeed to the SIDE of Rob Ford's house. The reporter was behind the BACK of the house. The rear of the house is NOT where the property in question in. In fact, the reporter could have stood on the sidewalk and took pictures of the land in question. The back yard was never a part of the land in question. A video that covers it all can be seen here. The reporter had no business in the back yard.

This is complete and utter incompetence by The Star. They still have the hate on for Ford since he won't grant them any interviews after they printed libelous comments about him. While it may not be trespassing, it certainly qualifies as 'mischief' under the law. Of course getting a conviction could be difficult, but there is plenty of precedent for this. Off the top of my head, this decision comes to mind. The TLDR version is that a neighbour put a security camera in their own yard but pointed it towards his neighbour. Despite no 'tresspass' taking place, the court found that this was mischief. So yeah, pointing a camera into someone else's yard is not necessarily an acceptable thing to do.Just because a person isn't actually ON your property, doesn't mean they can do whatever they want NEAR the property. If that was the case there wouldn't be injunctions preventing people from protesting on public land near abortion clinics. In the end, if this wasn't harassment, it was certainly incompetence on the part of the reporter. I mean seriously, who goes out at sunset to take pictures in a dark wooded area behind the house of a public figure who has received death threats before... Does this reporter not know you can get a BETTER view of the property by hitting up Google or Bing for a nice overhead view? If he still wanted to see it for himself, go during the day when no one is home. Better yet, send an actual photographer who can take pictures from a safe distance away without causing alarm. Sorry, this is epic fail on the part of The Star.

No it isn't, because she dismissed them as irrelevant ... but she was wrong about that. The land claims are all that is important going forward. You just don't get it. She didn't dismiss the land claims since the book wasn't about the land claims. I don't know how much clearer I can be on this. Frankly your ignornace in this regard is perplexing, since you seem to think that you can speak about something you haven't read.

Wow, really? That's the best you got? (Since my user name flummoxes you, I'll give you a hint, it's french, not english.) Again your ignorance betrays you. Seeing as you haven't read the book, you are ignorant to the fact that her book was NOT about the land claims at all. Let me quote from the first freaking page of her introduction. That's the problem with ignorance, people unfortunately speak without knowing what they are talking about. You obviously haven't read the book, or you would know that your remarks are completely baseless. She didn't "dismiss" land claims, as you ignorantly suggested. In actual fact she doesn't cover the land claims at all. That's not what the book was about. At all. Why not grab a copy from your local library and read it? Then you can bash it all you like without appearing ignorant.

And there was a signed statement by 37 chiefs that said they WERE consulted about it when they surrended the land in 1841. I'm so sick and tired of hearing about agreements being signed by native ancestors that current generations refuse to respect, yet they expect the current government to respect agreements signed by the governments of the day from over a century ago. Furthrremore, the courts issued an injunction against the First Nations ordering them off the property. The law applies to everyone, native and non. Wow you have so many facts wrong here, I don't know where to start. She wasn't 'dropped' by the Globe & Mail after publishing the book. In fact, the Globe & Mail went to great lengths to highlight her book, including a number of excerpts, as well as fasciliating an online Q & A with readers. For the record, it was Blatchford who left the Globe to return to the Post. Even the Globe said that much. Furthermore, it happened nearly a year later.Next, you do know that Christie Blatchford is an award winning writer, right? She's won a National Newspaper Award, as well as receiving the Governor General's Literary Award in 2008 her previous book, "Fifteen Days: Stories of Bravery, Friendship, Life and Death from Inside the New Canadian Army". Trying to slag an author of her caliber is pretty silly imho. Lastly, it's the epitome of ignorance to bash a book without having read it. So unless you have read it cover to cover, please don't humiliate yourself by suggesting that you somehow have any knowledge about the contents. I'm holding the book in my hands. If you want to debate the merits of it, let's do so. However, I won't debate anyone about a book they haven't actually read. Please don't waste my time. You talk about 'peace', where was this 'peace' when they nearly murdered someone there? I could rattle off a dozen more violent incidents as well. So please, don't make a mockery of the word 'peace' by using it to apply to the First Nations people involved in this. They have blood on their hands.

I was agreeing with you... For anyone interested, there is an excerpt from Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless", at the link below... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/caledonia-the-town-that-law-forgot/article1769901/singlepage/#articlecontent It offers just a glimpse into what went on. There were other excerpts published, I'll see if I can dig them up. I was literally awestruck at what went on after reading her book. For whatever reason the police in Canada only seem capable of two responses. Extreme pacifism, or excessive force.

The only 'racist' thing happening in Caledonia is the double standard that sees one 'race' (First Nations) allowed to flout the law, while those who live in the area (non First Nations) are harassed, threatened and police do nothing about it. I've had many a debate with people about this, and when I bump into the rare supporter of First Nations, I just hand them a copy of Christie Blatchford's book "Helpless" and then wait for the reality to set in. Once they have finished reading it they are usually shell shocked. The only ones who have 'failed' here are the First Nations residents who put themselves above Canadian law by invading DCE and attacking local residents. They deserve nothing so long as they continue to ignore Canadian law.

I don't have a problem with this. We have minimum wage laws, and so long as these wages are above the minimum, then why should anyone object? If you don't want the wage, don't take the job - it's that simple. No one is demanding that people work in these jobs and get FREE health care while they are here. That little tidbit alone should make up for it. Bottom line, no one is forcing anyone to work. If employers need workers and no one will apply at the wage they are paying, then they will have to pay more. Supply and demand. No company should be obligated to pay more than minimum wage.

I dont see why thats a problem if (very late term abortion) isnt happening anyways.That cuts both ways now doesn't it? One could also say 'why is there a problem with discussing new laws' when such a proposed law would not actually ban abortion completely.Laws are there for a reason. While no ethical doctor in Canada would extract a person's kidney and sell it, we still have laws against that. There are many more examples I could use... In the end I really don't see why we can't have a rational discussion about the issue.

That's the bottom line here.Some people suugest there should be no restrictions on abortion, but there already ARE restrictions on abortion. As you noted, there isn't a doctor in the civilized world that would 'abort' (kill) an unborn child in the 9th month of pregnancy. The child would be deleivered prematurely. Could a woman go into an abortion clinic a few days before delivery and get an abortion? No. So in reality there already are defacto 'prohibitions' regarding abortion in Canada. The problem is that there are no rules. If there isn't a single doctor in Canada that would perform an abortion at XX weeks, then would a law that restricts abortion to that point impact a "woman's right to choose"...? (For XX you can insert whatever number that doctors agree on that they would never perform an abortion at that point or later. I left the number out on purpose so that we wouldn't get off track debating a number.) There is a black hole in the law books right now, this is something that should be rectified.

Buying alcohol doesn't harm a fetus, drinking it does.