Saying what needs saying!

Ontario has added one more journalist to a very very very small group, who will actually report a story the way it is!

Bryant and bike courier a class issue


Sep 18, 2009 04:30 AM
Antonia Zerbisias
"A journalist's job is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."

Attributed to American critic H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

On Sept. 1, after former Ontario attorney-general Michael Bryant was charged with "criminal negligence causing death" and "dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death," there wasn't much comforting the afflicted.

Anyway, bicycle courier Darcy Allan Sheppard was more than afflicted.

He had been left bleeding from his nose and mouth on Bloor St., only to die in hospital after allegedly being bashed against a mailbox while hanging on to Bryant's convertible.

These are the claims that Toronto has learned from witnesses, police and media reports.

There is no dispute that, not only did Bryant engage one of the best criminal lawyers money could buy, he lined up a top-tier communications firm called Navigator to handle his public representations and, as the Star reported, shopped for a private investigator to dig up evidence.

It's very difficult not to remark on the unfair physical match between a cyclist and a motorist.

It's also tough not to notice the imbalance between a once-promising politician and the unfortunate product of just about the very worst sequence of disadvantages any Canadian can be born into.

So yes, this is very much a class issue.

Since that tragic late summer evening which has divided this city – cyclist v. motorist, rich v. poor, right v. left, pitbull lover v. Bryant's hated legislation – there's been much ink spilled on whether Sheppard was drunk, whether he grabbed Bryant's wheel, whether he slammed his backpack on the hood, as well as his past.

Just this week in Maclean's, for example, there is no sympathy spared for the victim.

But, as former Olympic cyclist and cycling lawyer Bob Mionske outlines on Bicycling.com, it's all spin.

"Why do I think it's spin?" he asks. "Because details about Sheppard's ancient run-ins with the law over stolen cheques had nothing to do with what happened the night of his death. Neither did stories about noise complaints from neighbours, or his problems with alcohol ... But they had everything to do with shaping public opinion, turning the public against Sheppard, and in support of Bryant."

That's why you can't help but get the impression that some people are more equal than others.

Except that now, Twitter and YouTube have brought yet another perspective. Which brings us to @BryantTruths and HonestEdits.

HonestEdits, who has been posting surveillance videos from the scene on YouTube, prefers to remain anonymous. HonestEdits' videos, compressed for clarity, string together two clips in a chronological sequence that the corporate media have not presented.

True, they're not exactly high-definition. (Try an iPhone.) And they may not tell the whole story. In fact, last week, when the first video popped up, the Bryant camp, via its blog, denounced its narration as "inaccurate and one-sided."

Now that post is gone – but I have screen grabs.

Interestingly, what's not gone is the video, plus others since added, now viewed some 40,000 times, collectively, and on various blogs.

PR pro and and cycling advocate Don Wiedman is @BryantTruths, tweeting what he calls "the other side of the story."

He does it because he feels that the PR profession is getting a bad name – and also because he has found himself in street face-offs with "guys in their 40s in big black cars."

As he told me, "I want a better world. I want to fight for the underdog."

Which is what journalism should be about.

Meanwhile, the Navigator-produced bryantfacts.wordpress.com and tweets (@BryantFacts) have scaled back – with the former now containing only a terse announcement that it "will be used for the release of any official statements."

Bryant will have his day in court next month – and, presumably, a trial will eventually follow.

As both Weidman and Honest-Edits tell me, Sheppard may be dead – he won't be silenced.

Antonia Zerbisias is a Living section columnist. azerbisias@thestar.ca. She blogs at thestar.blogs.com.


Toronto Star

McGuinty accused of misleading public

Karen Howlett

Toronto — From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated on Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2009 02:59AM EDT


.The Ontario Legislature's fall session began yesterday with the opposition formally accusing Premier Dalton McGuinty of misleading the public over a provincial agency embroiled in a spending scandal.

Progressive Conservative Leader Tim Hudak set the tone during Question Period by asking the Premier about his “summer of scandal.” It was Mr. Hudak's first opportunity to confront Mr. McGuinty face-to-face in the legislature since he became leader in June.

The Conservatives have kept the Premier on the defensive all summer over lavish spending at two provincial agencies, and government officials were bracing for a fresh round of revelations from the opposition when the legislature returned.

“I just kept waiting and waiting,” a government source said yesterday.

But Mr. Hudak confined his attacks to scandal-plagued eHealth Ontario and statements made by Mr. McGuinty that, Mr. Hudak says, are “demonstrably false.”

The Tories and New Democrats together lodged a formal complaint with the Speaker's Office, accusing the Premier and Health Minister David Caplan of deliberately misleading the legislature about a review of eHealth.

The matter dates back to early June, when Mr. McGuinty said accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers had been retained to conduct an independent review of lucrative contracts the agency had awarded to consultants without competitive tenders.

But there never was a contract in place to retain the accounting firm, Mr. Hudak said.

“He misled Ontarians,” he said. “It is clear that Ontarians cannot trust him to fix the culture of entitlement that he himself created.”

Mr. McGuinty said during Question Period that the Pricewaterhouse review was called off because the provincial auditor was already conducting his own review of eHealth.

“It was certainly my understanding that PWC had been retained,” Mr. McGuinty said. “There is no nefarious plot afoot, as my friend may intimate.

The government has been under siege over eHealth since last May, when the Tories obtained documents through a freedom-of-information request, showing that the agency awarded sole-sourced contracts to consultants, many of whom submitted nickel-and-dime expense claims. The revelations led to the resignations of CEO Sarah Kramer and chairman Alan Hudson in June.

The Premier's Office released several letters, showing that Mr. Caplan had, in fact, asked Dr. Hudson to undertake an immediate third-party review of eHealth's management practices.

“I am troubled by inadequate reassurances following reports about eHealth Ontario's spending practices,” Mr. Caplan says in the letter, dated June 1.

But the audit was called off after Auditor-General Jim McCarter wrote to Rita Burak, Dr. Hudson's successor, on June 29, saying that having Pricewaterhouse do a review would amount to a potential duplication of his work.

Mr. McGuinty has taken steps to rein in agencies that operate at arm's length from the government, after spending scandals at eHealth and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. The government fired the lottery corporation's CEO, Kelly McDougald, with cause, and the entire board resigned amid revelations of wining and dining by employees. Ms. McDougald has launched a lawsuit against the government.

Yesterday, the government announced that senior executives at 21 of the province's largest agencies will be required to publish their spending on travel and entertainment online, beginning no later than April 1.

“We're going to shine a light on expenses so Ontarians will know who exactly is spending what exactly,” Mr. McGuinty told reporters.


Globe and Mail

I see it, the jury surely can't miss this

National Post editorial board: The beginning of the end for a stupid law

Posted: September 11, 2009, 8:30 AM by NP Editor
Edirorial

So the Attorney-General of Ontario says he believes -- contrary to an opinion handed down last week by Ontario Court Justice Geoffrey Griffin -- that the province's stunt-driving law is wholly constitutional, and will be upheld on an appeal he intends to make. Well, perhaps it is all for the best that appellate courts will quickly get to review, and trample, the odious provision that makes exceeding the posted speed limit by 50 km/h an "absolute liability" offence that effectively allows for no defence by the accused. Judge Griffin's ruling is only binding on justices of the peace; by taking the matter to a higher court, Attorney-General Bentley is risking a more permanent, unconditional and thorough reversal.

One says "risking," but the outcome is as certain as any such matter could imaginably be. The absolute liability provision in the stunt-driving law could not be more obvious or ostentatious in its unconstitutionality. The Charter of Rights says that an accused person is "to be presumed innocent until proven guilty," but the norms underlying the notion of proof of guilt are much older -- in a way, more deeply entrenched in our common understanding of the law and our relations with the state. Since time immemorial, prosecutors seeking to convict on an offence have had to meet a dual test; that the illegal act or omission actually happened and that the accused intended to do wrong, or was somehow careless or negligent. In short, that they possessed mens rea. It's in Latin, which is a useful hint at how old the concept is.

The law dismisses the requirement to prove intent when it comes to lighter penalties such as the loss of driving privileges, but it is platinum-clad Canadian law, established in the B.C. Motor Vehicle Reference of 1985, that absolute liability cannot lead to a risk of imprisonment, or indeed to any penalty that impinges upon the "life, liberty and security of the person." The attorney-general who created the stunt-driving law ought to have known that it would collapse the first time it was challenged -- indeed, that no judge who was aware of Charter jurisprudence would have any other choice. But Michael Bryant is, understandably, too busy with personal matters at the moment to offer an explanation of why he wasted the time and effort of Ontario courts framing and debating legislation that was patently unconstitutional.

Mr. Bryant is an easy target here, but one notices that the case which led to Judge Griffin's ruling exhibits signs of a sickening failure of human sympathy and social reasoning on the part of police and prosecutors. Jane Raham was caught just one km/h over the stunt-driving limit while trying to pass a truck on Highway 7 near Kaladar, Ont. She could have based a defence on the inherent inaccuracy of a measurement of her speed taken from a moving police car; instead, she and her lawyers --pardon the metaphor -- took the high road, acting for the benefit of all citizens.

As Justice Griffin observed, Ms. Raham is not, in any ordinary sense of the word, a "stunt driver"; she is a grandmother who didn't want to stay in the blind spot of a truck, or in the passing lane of a highway, any longer than necessary. This seems not only natural, but indicative of a positive, sensible road awareness and concern for safety (not to mention a willingness to step on the gas that is quite laudable in an older person).

But inexplicably, nobody decided to give her the benefit of the doubt and revise the stunting ticket before this matter even reached a courtroom. Why not? Are Ontario's police nothing but unthinking automatons determined to see the law upheld at any cost in human suffering and fear? We certainly hope not -- and think not in most cases. But the danger that some of them might be is one more reason the law should not stand in its current form.

National Post

Julian Fantino: Business as usual!

I love what "Mr Accountabilty" calls it!
This is same Comissioner who's on his second adjudicator and the THIRD appeal to have the second adjudicator tossed in the internal hearing up in Orillia..........That's hysterical nonsense
Hat's off to you Mr. Clarkson for asking some decent questions.


Judge declares part of stunt-driving legislation unconstitutional but law will still be enforced, OPP Commissioner says

By BRETT CLARKSON, SUN MEDIA



OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino calls it "the Lord's work."
He said his officers will "make no apologies" for continuing to enforce a law that gives police the power to impound vehicles, suspend licences, and slap high fines against drivers before the driver has a chance to appear in court.

After a Napanee judge ruled a section of the provincial anti-stunt driving law to be unconstitutional, Fantino defended the legislation as the "greater good" and said police shouldn't be regarded as the "bad guys" for trying to save dangerous drivers from themselves and others.


"We're saving lives," Fantino said. "The people who need to get their act together are those who are driving aggressively, who are driving dangerously, who in this case are driving in excess of 50 km/h over the posted speed limit. They're the ones who are the problem, we're not it.

"We're just trying to save them from being killed and killing other people," Fantino said.

Fantino's comments came after Justice Geoffrey Griffin ruled in a Napanee courthouse on Friday that a section of the province's stunt-driving legislation is unconstitutional.

Jane Raham, 62, was returning from Kanata when she was clocked at 131 km/h in an 80 km/h zone. She was charged with going more than 50 km/h over the limit and had her licence automatically suspended and her car seized for seven days.

Griffin's ruling focused on whether convicting Raham solely on the basis of her speed alone made the law an absolute liability offence, one in which an accused can't advance a defence that they acted reasonably or were mistaken in fact.

Because he found it did just that, Griffin ruled it was unconstitutional as it allows for up to six months in jail.

Fantino spoke with the Sun today about the court's decision and the legislation itself.

TORONTO SUN: An Oakville woman's conviction was overturned on Friday after a judge ruled that a section of the stunt-driving law is unconstitutional. Your thoughts?

OPP COMMISSIONER JULIAN FANTINO: This is the ruling of one court on one case. It doesn't strike down the law, nor does it prevent us from continuing to enforce the law, as is our authority to do. So we'll continue to do that and I'm sure that as with every other new law that we've seen come around, there's always this initial phase of appeals of appeals and so forth.

Contention is always on the forefront of new pieces of legislation. We had that happen with the RIDE program, there was all kinds of challenges about the the helmet law, the seat-belt law...we're going to keep enforcing it.

SUN: The argument was that a charge (under the legislation) can automatically lead to a fine, the vehicle being impounded, possible jail time. The lawyer (Brian Starkman) argued that there's no way to advance a defense under this law.

FANTINO: With all due respect to the court, the defense is to not speed over 50 km/h from the posted speed limit. That's the absolute defense. We make no apologies for continuing to enforce this until the issue is ultimately resolved. That will be something that will take place, for sure, in time.

And just for your edification, on OPP-patrolled highways, speed-related fatalities are down 30% since this law came into effect.

SUN: So you think that data speaks for itself?

FANTINO: I think it does. It's a greater-good kind of initiative. We don't consider this a frivolous piece of legislation, nor do we see it as a abuse of due process or peoples' rights or entitlements.

When you look at the carnage that we're experiencing on our highways, the kinds of injuries we're having to deal with, the extraordinary health costs, the loss of productivity, the loss of a loved one, all of which is preventable, and you look at speed being a causal factor, I think we're doing the lord's work, personally. And we'll continue doing it.


SUN: Surely you've heard the argument that it gives police the power to be judge and jury at the side of the road?


FANTINO: I totally disagree with that, because the judge and jury in this particular instance are the people who decide to drive at such an aggressive and dangerous speed.

They're the ones who are making the decision. We're just holding them accountable. That's what police do. We do that with the RIDE program with impaired drivers — we suspend their licenses, we impound their vehicles. That's all before anyone's convicted in court.

SUN: But that's the problem that people would have, that before they're convicted in court, their car is taken away.

FANTINO: That's fine but we also take away other tools or implements people use to break the law. No different — before they're convicted.

You know, we have to stop pointing the finger at police as the bad guys here. We're saving lives.

The people who need to get their act together are those who are driving aggressively, who are driving dangerously, who in this case are driving in excess of 50 km/h over the posted speed limit. They're the ones who are the problem, we're not it.

We're just trying to save them from being killed and killing other people.

SUN: Are you confident that the judicial system in Ontario will reflect your viewpoint — that the law is just in terms of protecting people?

You've said this is one court and one case. That said, do you feel confident that when all is said and done, the law will survive?

FANTINO: I think once the issues are flushed out and people in authority — the lawmakers, those who interpret the law — take a look at the carnage, the absolute tragedy of so many of these preventable situations...I think the greater good will prevail.

If it doesn't, well, you know, we don't make the law, we just enforce it. And we will indeed. And if there's modifications to be made, we will do that as well.

If there's one profession that's always adjusting to societal norms and standards, it's the police, and we'll do it in this case, too. But in the meantime, the legal advice that we have is that this decision does not prevent us from continuing to enforce what we believe to be a very valid, greater-good kind of legislation, and until we're told otherwise, this is the way we're going to go.


Toronto Sun