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.

Oh? And you consider allowing a pregnant woman to shoot up is cool? Because that is precisely what happens. No effort is made to stop a woman from using Insite while pregnant, despite EVERYONE knowing what will happen to that baby.I'm not advocating "for approaches that have proven ... harmful for users" - since by definition detoxification is a process to REDUCE harm to that person's body by detoxifying them. Allowing them to continue to shoot up is what is harmful to users. The damage done to these addicts is often irreversible when they reach the point where they are so far gone that they look for help voluntarily. When people can't make rational decisions for themselves, society must make them. Shooting galleries aren't a solution, they are a head-in-the-sand response.

Insite is NOT an intervention program. It is a place where drug addicts can go to shoot up drugs. There is no intervention at all, which is why there are so many objections. If they WERE intervening - we wouldn't be having this debate. I could say the same about your protestations. What rational person would voluntarily and knowingly allow a person addicted to drugs to continue said conduct knowing full well how physically and mentally damaging that conduct is. It boggles the mind that someone would actually try and suggest that people be voluntarily allowed to stay addicted.I don't object for moral reasons. This isn't an issue of behaviour of the addicts that bothers me. They're addicted, their behaviour is a funciton of that. My objection is based on the grounds that places like Insite are acting as enablers to prolong a person's addiction to drugs, ignoring the impact these drugs have not only on the person who takes them, but on those around them. That includes any children they have and the community, who undoubtedly suffer from the crimes these addict commit to sustain their habit. Even then what bothers me more is not the crimes, but that we - as society - knowingly allow this to happen. Addicts deserve better. They deserve a society that will take a stand and act to get them clean. What they don't deserve is a society that believes 'helping' means to give them a fresh needle and a place to shoot up so they remain addicted.

Moral hangup? My objections aren't moral in nature at all. I don't have a problem with people - who genuinely need it - getting powerful drugs to deal with pain. That's not the issue here though. What I do object to is the idea that those who are addicted to drugs should be allowed to freely continue said behaviour without any intervention from society. I'm totally fine with detox, and I would have no objeciton to giving addicts as much free herion (or whatever they are hooked on) they need so long as it is part of a actual detox program that has pre-defined goals. There are plenty of detox programs with very respectable success rates, so let's get the addicts OFF the drugs, instead of just sitting back and watching them destroy their lives and their bodies.

I never said it did. However the thread topic is about that concept, and the same backers from Insite have being doing 'test programs' that involve giving away free heroin. (Look up NAOMI and SALOME if you want more details.) This is the way these drug 'enablers' want to go. It's bad enough that they keep addicts hooked on drugs, they also want to provide those drugs for free.

Oh yeah? Like OxyContin for example? Drugs that are highly addictive can never be allowed to be disytributed freely. Time and time again society finds out that there are some drugs that can just never be allowed to be given openly since the addictive nature of the drug is just too high. You're right, but they should be taken off the street and detoxified, not given drugs and fresh needles and told to go nuts.

So does that mean we should just give up? No point having minimum age laws for alcohol since kids will drink anyway? Same for smoking? Heck, we can't stop people from drinking and driving, so why even try? We will never stop terrorists, why even try? Even child porn, why fight it when you can never put a dent in the number of pervs out there?Why? Because society - by and large - doesn't believe in defeatist ideology. Just because an corrective action won't totally eradicate a particular behaviour doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

That's not accurate. In fact studies have shown (and I can dig up links to back this up) that people who do NOT drink any alcohol at all are at a higher health risk than those who are light drinkers. (IE, glass of wine a day etc.) Sure. However risk comes into play. You can die from drinking too much Coke (soft drink) as witnessed in recent news. No one suggests we should ban Coke. However, the addictive qualities of certain drugs makes it irresponsible to allow those drugs to be obtained freely. We could say the same about those who are suicidal. We can hospitalize them and hope that when they are released back into society that they won't kill themselves. However it doesn't always work out that way. Many are released and then end up dead. Does this mean we shouldn't try?That's my issue here. Places like Insite are basically saying that society has thrown up their hands and won't bother trying to stop these people from ruining their lives anymore. Just enable them to keep destroying their body and pretty soon they won't be a problem anymore. I think these people deserve better. People need to step up and help these lost souls instead of taking the easy way out.

Sorry, but your comparison is flawed. You miss the point that you CAN drink alcohol safely in low to moderate amounts. A better parallel would have been tobacco and smoking. There is no 'safe' number of cigarettes that a person can smoke, so this would have been a far better position to argue from. However, had you gone that way, I would have countered by suggesting that we have people who advocate for marijuana legalization, and studies have shown that inhaling marijuana smoke is no less risky than inhaling tobacco smoke. Mind you the point is still apt that we have governments that refuse to ban cigarettes despite knowing the damage it does and the cost to both people and the health care system. In the end we have to ask ourselves whether the 'greater good' is served by being 'enablers' of drug addicts. Frankly I see this as the easy way out, and a way to ignore the problem. Instead of dealing with the problem of addiction head on, we instead allow people to continue in their destructive ways. The latter is far more cruel imho.

So do you suggest that suicidal people shouldn't be stopped - by force if necessary - from taking their own lives? How is this any different? Drug use is as much a death sentence as suicide is. Yet why is it that we have no qualms in 'committing' a person to an institution if they want to kill themselves? Isn't that using 'force'?You can't play favourites here. If drug addicts refuse to get treatment, then they should not be enabled to continue their destructive habit. It's no different than handing a loaded gun to a suicidal person. The state should never facilitate behaviour that is clearly self-destructive in nature.

I have to reply to this since it isn't fully accurate. Does Insite offer detox to those who ask? Sure. However you can get into detox through any one of a number of social service agencies. The bigger issue with places like Insite is not just that they are drug use 'enablers', it's that there is no obligation for any user to enter detox while using their services. All the 'clinic' does is fascilitate drug use. They do nothing to prevent or discourage such drug use. Some people seem to be missing the bigger picture here. These drug users deserve better than a government that does nothing to get them off drugs. People need to ask themselves... If you had a child that was falling off a stool when trying to get to the cough syrup on the top shelf of the medicine cabinet, would your solution be to move the cough syrup down to the bottom shelf so the child wouldn't fall? Or would you tackle the issue of the child being addicted to cough syrup? I think most peolple would choose the latter. Society should be doing the same with addicts. I could support a place like insite if it came with mandatory detox. That's not the reality though. We owe drug addicts more than just a way for them to stay addicted to drugs. We owe these people the leadership and compassion that would see these addicts treated - whether they want it or not. If a person is suicidal you don't give them a knife and a place to kill themselves. Why do the same with a drug addict? They deserve better.