RECOMMENDATIONS- CAUGHT IN THE ACT- by ANDRE MARIN

Accordingly, I am making the following recomendations:
1. The ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should take steps to revise or replace the Public Works Protection Act. If the governmemnt wants to claim the authority to designate security areas to protect persons, an integrated statute should be created that could be used not only to protect public works but also provide proper authority for ensuring the security of persons during public events when required.
2. The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Safety Services should examine whether the range of police powers conferred by the Public works Protection Act should be retained or imported into any revised statute, including whether it is appropriate to give police the authority to arrest those who have already been excluded entry to secured areas, and whether it is appropriate to authorize guards and peace officers to offer conclusive testimony, whether righ or wrong, about the location of security boundaries
3 The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should develop a protocal that would call for public information campaigns when police powers are modified by suboordinate legislation, particularly in protest situations.
4. The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services should report back to my Office in six months' time on the progress in implementing my recommedations and at six month intervals thereafter until such time as I am satified that adequate steps have been taken to address them

CONCLUSION OF CAUGHT IN THE ACT

THE CONCLUSION FROM ANDRE MARIN
PARAGRAPH 273
It is therefore my conclusion, pursuant to subsection 21(1) of the Ombudsman Act, that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services promoted a regulation that "appears to be contrary to law" and not "in accordance with the provisions of any Act". It is also unreasonable to support the adoption of that regulation, given that it conferred unnecessary and constitutionally suspect police powers in the volatile and confrontational context of inevitable public protest. Moreover, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services unreasonably and unjustly failed, in advance of its enactment, to ensure both proper consultation with stakeholders and that the citizens of this province were aware of the highly exceptional police authority that had been conferred.
Paragraph 274
The government has already announced that the Public Works Protection Act will be reviewed, with full input from stakeholders. This is a welcome step in the right direction. I am making two specific recommendations that I believe should be considered in the context of this review.
Paragraph 275
My third recommendation is intended to address the Minister's failure to ensure proper communication of a regulation that effectively increased police powers. Generally, police authority is conferred through enactment of legislation, accompanied by the openness, transparency, and accountability inherent in the democratic system of government. There is a real and insidious danger associated with using subordinate legislation, passed behind closed doors, to increase police authority, and I believe that this practise should be sedulously avoided. However, I recognize that there may be rare, and urgent and pressing circumstances that justify using a regulation to bolster police authority. In the event that this occurs, it is imperative that the public be properly advised. In fact, in any case where police powers are extended, and particularly in protest situations, I believe that the public should be fully informed.

CAUGHT IN THE ACT - THE G 20 SUMMIT REPORT

BY THE OMBUDSMAN OF ONTARIO, ANDRE' MARIN - DECEMBER 2010
1. Regulation 233/10, passed to enhance security during the G20 summit, should never have been enacted. It was likely unconstitutional. The effect of Regulation 233/10, now expired, was to infringe on freedom of expression in ways that do not seem justifiable in a free and democratic society. Specifically, the passage of the regulation triggered the extravagant police authority found in the Public Works Protection Act, including the power to arbitarily arrest and detain people and engage in unreasonable searches and seizures. Even apart from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the legality of Regulation 233/10 is doubtful. The Public Works Protection Act under which it was proclaimed authorizes regulations to be created to protect infrastructure, not to provide security to people during events. Regulation 233/10 was therefore probably invalid for having exceeded the authority of the enactment under which it was passed. These problems should have been apparent, and given the tremendous power Regulation 233/10 confered on the police, sober and considered reflection should have been given to whether it was appropriate to arm officers with such authority. This was not done. The decision of the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to sponsor the regulation was unreasonable.
2. Even had Regulation 233/10 been valid, the goverment should have handled its passage better. Regulation 233/10 changed the rules of the game. It gave police powers that are unfamiliar in a free and democratic society. Steps should have been taken to ensure that the Toronto Police Services understood what they were getting. More importantly, the passage of the regulation should have been aggressively publicized, not diclosed only through obsecure official information channels. Perversely, by changing the rules of the game without real notice, Regulation 233/10 acted as a trap for the responsible- those who took the time to educate themselves about police powers before setting out to express legitamate political dissent.
3. All of this makes for a sorry legacy. The value in hosting international summits is that it permits the host nation to primp and pose before the eyes of the world. Ordinarily Ontario and Canada could proudly showcase the majesty of a free and democratic society. The legacy of the passage and administration of Regulation 233/10 is that we failed to do that well.

THE ' N ' WORD

IS IT RIGHT TO REWRITE MARK TWAIN'S MASTERPIECE
A new version of Mark Twain's The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn drew fire by replacing the word "nigger" with the word "slave" and "Injun Joe" with "Indian Joe" to make the book more acceptable to teachers. (In Twain's day, changing words to make literature more politically palatable was called "bowdlerization" after Thomas Bowdler, an English physician who published a "cleansed" version of William Shakespeare's work he deemed more appropriate for 19th century women and children). It isn't often that a new edition of a 19th century novel draws such heated condemnation.
Meanwhile papers were also abuzz this week with debate over the use of the "N" word after a U.S. anchorman sued WTXF-Philadelphia, which had fired him for using it ( he was querying whether the station should use the term 'N-word" or the word itself to cover a story about the NAACP holding a mock burial of the word). And Thursday night, two Ontario minor hockey teams- The Napa Auto Parts and Austin Trophies- played against each other for the first time since the Napa coach pulled his team from the ice in November after a memeber of the opposing team yelled the "N-word" at one of his players. The teams tied, and the coach hopes they all learned a lesson.
Mark Twain's book Huckleberry Finn is No 4 on the list of of most banned books in American schools.
Attempting to sanitize the book is not the answer. Intelligent and sensitive discussion with students would be a better response. Trying to protect students from the full ugliness of racisim by softening that language does a disservice to them.
Sticks and stone may break my bones but names will never hurt me.

HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

THANK YOU TO ALL THAT READ THIS BLOG. AND THANK YOU TO ALL THAT COMMENTED. ALL COMMENTS ARE WELCOME. I HOPE YOU ALL HAD A GREAT CHRISTMAS SEASON AND MAY YOU ALL HAVE A HAPPY AND SAFE NEW YEAR. DO NOT DRINK AND DRIVE
SHERRIE
NORTH PERTH ADVOCATE

LETTER TO SANTA

Have a safe and Merry Christmas
Dear Santa
I have been a very good girl this year. I ran in the municipal election, I gave to those that needed it, I helped my neighbour. I ask for nothing for Christmas but for others. Could you please help Dolton McSquinty and his flying monkeys find the yellow brick road to the wizard so they can find a brain. And PLEASE do not let him get voted back in. I will leave you a beverage and goodies when you stop by, but please no gifts.
Thanks
Sherrie in Atwood

MY LOVE TO THE MAN WHO TAUGHT ME THIS

GOD GRANT ME THE SERENINTY TO ACCEPT THE THINGS I CAN NOT CHANGE
THE COURAGE TO CHANGE THE THINGS I CAN
AND THE WISDOM TO KNOW THE DIFFERENCE

T' WAS THE NIGHT BEFORE CHRISTMAS

It was the night before Christmas and all through the house not a creature was
stirring ..... except me.
Dog is sick from eating all the cookies, room mate finally found something to do after 2 months of being laid off and asleep at 7, like always and I am totally exhausted. It is Christmas Eve at 8 pm and I hope to sleep in tommorrow. To everyone who reads this blog, may the spirit of the season over take you, may you be blessed with people who care, may you all have a wonderful day tommorrow and lets all remember all the ones we wished were still here. And to all the people who know they are important to me, "May you all have a safe and Merry Christmas"

AND THESE ARE A FEW OF MY FAVOURITE THINGS

CAMBRIDGE ADVOCATE
ELMIRA ADVOCATE
NORTH PERTH ADVOCATE
h1rippoff
THE GARY DOYLE SHOW on 570 news
JEFF ALLAN SHOW on 570 news
101 7 the one for news

AGAIN SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AND YOU DECIDE

Application filed today in superior court requesting a new election for the city of Cambridge
Dec 22nd, 2010 | By Debbie Duff Vitez | Section: 2010 Municipal Candidates

Early this afternoon an application(s) under section 83(1) of the Municipal Elections Act was filed with the Superior Court of Justice challenging the the 2010 Cambridge election process and its results.

The Applicants, Thomas Vann and Deborah Vitez, list the irregularities of the process as:

A. inaccurate/incomplete information;

B. inconsistent/inappropriate planning;

C. mal-functioning equipment;

D. lack of accommodation for aged, infirm, and disabled persons; and

E. A lack of adequate communication between the Returning Officer for the Cambridge 2010 Municipal Election (Mr. Alex Mitchell) and the candidates, as well as the public

The Applicants state that:

The rights of the electorate were so encumbered prior to and during the Cambridge 2010 Municipal Election (October 25, 2010) as to warrant a new Municipal Election in Cambridge, Ontario. It is in the spirit of ensuring that these issues are reviewed, addressed, and redressed that we respectfully submit to the Superior Court, a request for a nullification of the results of said election. We further request that the people of the City of Cambridge be permitted to fully exercise their franchise with amply accessible (in number and in amenities) Voting Stations, Polls, and an old-fashioned, more reliable, human counted ballot method of determining who will represent them.