I've shared a document with you called "2008 Budget, June-Dec":
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=ptyQNn5QTvZsxDhslQddrew&inv=markfrancis228@gmail.com
It's not an attachment -- it's stored online at Google Docs. To open this document, just click the link above.
your gmail account login, should you ever need it, is
gnatt@rogers.com
natchacha
---
Note: You'll need to sign into Google with this email address. To use a different email address, just reply to this message and ask me to invite your other one.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
[Section 15] Who's afraid of Elizabeth May? And, is she reading my blog?
The Conservatives, that's who.
Going further than my previous post, Elizabeth May knocks the ball out of the park refuting the Conservative's latest nasty press release:
May goes on to quote the same Harper speech from 1997 that Mike from Rational Reasons pointed to in my previous post's comments, just above Jim Bobby's comment that he was going to get in touch with May over this...
Hey! Wait a minute...
Anyway, May thinks she's under attack because she's viewed as a risk. After all, she is running against Peter MacKay next election, and is a threat to his seat.
Will the Minister of Defense lose his seat to the first Green to ever make it to Parliament? I hope so...
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/16/2008 05:16:00 PM
Going further than my previous post, Elizabeth May knocks the ball out of the park refuting the Conservative's latest nasty press release:
...the second release from the Alliance Conservative Republican Party of Canada this week. This one was low even by Harper standards. At least I was in good company. This release attacked me as well as one of my heroes, Senator Romeo Dallaire, and two Liberal MPs who happen to be friends of mine, Garth Turner and John Godfrey.The drive by smear of my reputation attacked my love of country. It claimed I had said Canada had the worst government on earth. The Harper lackeys claimed this showed "shocking ignorance of the deplorable human rights situations faced by other people around the world." I am quite well aware of shocking human rights situations. We held a press conference last week decrying the human rights abuses of the government of Colombia and urging that Canada not proceed with a new trade pact with Colombia. What I said at the Global Greens Congress in Sao Paulo (and anyone can see it on YouTube was part of a speech on climate change, setting out the response of governments around the world to the climate crisis:
"I am ashamed to admit that the Canadian government is now the worst in the world."
At this point, thanks to Prime Minister Harper's repudiation of the Kyoto Protocol, his government's fraudulent climate plan and his zeal for ever-expanding operations in the Athabasca tar sands, our government is the worst in the world. We are the only nation among over 165 that have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol to have an official government policy violating our international commitments. We are now under investigation by the United Nations for violating rudimentary reporting requirements.
What is galling about being attacked is that I believe Canadians are the most blessed people on earth, living in a beautiful and wealthy country, one that prizes community and shared well-being. I am fiercely loyal to Canada and regard receiving the honour of being an Officer of the Order of Canada as the greatest of all honours. (By the way, none of the other leaders have received the Order of Canada). Having received it, I stand on guard for Canada. So the gall of these nasty little minions in issuing a press release attacking my love of country began to raise my ire.
May goes on to quote the same Harper speech from 1997 that Mike from Rational Reasons pointed to in my previous post's comments, just above Jim Bobby's comment that he was going to get in touch with May over this...
Hey! Wait a minute...
Anyway, May thinks she's under attack because she's viewed as a risk. After all, she is running against Peter MacKay next election, and is a threat to his seat.
Will the Minister of Defense lose his seat to the first Green to ever make it to Parliament? I hope so...
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/16/2008 05:16:00 PM
[Section 15] Conservative Party libels on its website
The Conservative Party, which is funding Harper's libel chill lawsuit against the Liberal Party of Canada, has put out a press release pushing some blatant lies.
I'll address one here. (For another, Garth Turner takes care of the slur against him. And again.)
Here's an excerpt from a speech by Elizabeth May delivered in Sao Paulo recently, which the Conservatives picked on:
And the Conservative's take on May's bolded statement? From their press release
You would hope that they've at least keep their lying on topic.
This is very brave behaviour from a party which is suing the LPC for reprinting the contents of Hansard.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/16/2008 01:04:00 PM
I'll address one here. (For another, Garth Turner takes care of the slur against him. And again.)
Here's an excerpt from a speech by Elizabeth May delivered in Sao Paulo recently, which the Conservatives picked on:
...climate impacts have real impacts on global security. The US Department of Defence (the Pentagon) actually did a study researching a "plausible scenario for abrupt climate change." Its conclusions appeared in Fortune magazine in early 2004. They chose to study the stalling of the Gulf Steam in 2010.
The study concluded that the impact of that, with colder temperatures in Europe, changing rainfall patterns, causing increased drought, food insecurity, increased numbers of environmental refugees, would constitute a great threat to global security than terrorism.
What has been the response of governments to this threat? I am ashamed to admit the Canadian government is now the worst in the world. The Stephen Harper government has repudiated our legally binding Kyoto targets and is working to increase Greenhouse gases from the Athabasca tar sands.
And the Conservative's take on May's bolded statement? From their press release
Obviously, the CPC is deliberately misrepresentating May's comments.Then there was Mr. Dion's deputy leader and 'Red-Green' alliance partner Elizabeth May. Already on the hot seat for labeling those who disagree with her as being worse than Nazi appeasers, Ms. May went even further and told an international audience that:
"I am ashamed to admit the Canadian government is now the worst in the world" (The Toronto Star, May 8, 2008)
Ms. May's comments not only disrespect her own country, they also show a shocking ignorance of the deplorable human rights situations faced by other people around the world.
You would hope that they've at least keep their lying on topic.
This is very brave behaviour from a party which is suing the LPC for reprinting the contents of Hansard.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/16/2008 01:04:00 PM
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
[Section 15] Liberals want a jury to hear Harper's libel chill case
The CBC reports that the Liberals have filed their statement of defense in response to Harper's ill-advised libel suit against the LPC. The LPC wants a trial by jury, and is calling this vexatious suit a "fundamental attack on the freedom of political expression."
More from the CBC:
I predict that a jury will not only acquit the LPC, they will debate how much spit to pour in Harper's eye.
If you actually read what the LPC site published, you'll find commentary and Hansard content which had already been broadcast all over Canada by CPAC and the major networks, television stations and newspapers. There was considerable re-publishing of the content on blogs as well. Commentary in newspapers and on television was not favourable towards Harper, who, to this day, has deliberately failed to be held accountable in the Cadman affair by refusing to answer key questions.
To sue the Liberals over content already more thoroughly broadcast all over Canada by the media is not only ridiculous, but is transparently a strategic attempt by Harper to silence his critics. This is libel chill at its lowest temperature, designed to freeze public discussion of a ruling Party scandal, which, if the allegations are true, could wound the Conservative as deeply as Adscam wounded the Liberals.
We do know that Harper was told by Donna Cadman herself some two years ago about the bribe allegation, and that Harper did nothing about it. Our PM has known for all that time about a likely attempt by his Party to bribe a sitting MP and did nothing. We also have a recording where Harper demonstrates some level of personal knowledge about offers made to Cadman.
Given Harper's refusal to answer questions, and the fact that he clearly had personal knowledge of offers being made and that a bribe allegation existed, he simply can't have any basis for crying foul when the opposition tries to shine some light in our interest. The Opposition is here to serve us in part by exposing, or trying to expose, flaws in government. That check against the abuses of government needs privilege to act – privilege which Harper is trying to intimidate into disuse with this vexatious lawsuit.
Canada's libel laws are quite backwards. Other English-speaking countries have long since amended their libel laws to prevent abuses just like this one, and, indeed, this case may be the very one which will lead to common-law changes to allow for scrutiny of public figures without the implied threat of a tort.
We can only hope Harper fails. Otherwise freedom of expression in this country will be eroded to the detriment of us all.
Except those in power with something to hide.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/14/2008 03:50:00 PM
More from the CBC:
"The reports were published in good faith and in accordance with the Defendants' legal, moral, social and profession duties to engage legitimate public debate," the statement of claim says.Don't be thrown by the multi-level arguments. This is normal in both statements of defense and claim.
According to the statement of claim, the Liberals "expressly" deny that the words are defamatory of Harper, but if they are, then they are "true or substantially true."
As well, the Liberals deny Harper has suffered damage to his reputation and reject the damages he's seeking as "excessive, exaggerated, remote."
But they add that if Harper's reputation was damaged, then he brought it upon himself for refusing to answer questions about the controversy.
I predict that a jury will not only acquit the LPC, they will debate how much spit to pour in Harper's eye.
If you actually read what the LPC site published, you'll find commentary and Hansard content which had already been broadcast all over Canada by CPAC and the major networks, television stations and newspapers. There was considerable re-publishing of the content on blogs as well. Commentary in newspapers and on television was not favourable towards Harper, who, to this day, has deliberately failed to be held accountable in the Cadman affair by refusing to answer key questions.
To sue the Liberals over content already more thoroughly broadcast all over Canada by the media is not only ridiculous, but is transparently a strategic attempt by Harper to silence his critics. This is libel chill at its lowest temperature, designed to freeze public discussion of a ruling Party scandal, which, if the allegations are true, could wound the Conservative as deeply as Adscam wounded the Liberals.
We do know that Harper was told by Donna Cadman herself some two years ago about the bribe allegation, and that Harper did nothing about it. Our PM has known for all that time about a likely attempt by his Party to bribe a sitting MP and did nothing. We also have a recording where Harper demonstrates some level of personal knowledge about offers made to Cadman.
Given Harper's refusal to answer questions, and the fact that he clearly had personal knowledge of offers being made and that a bribe allegation existed, he simply can't have any basis for crying foul when the opposition tries to shine some light in our interest. The Opposition is here to serve us in part by exposing, or trying to expose, flaws in government. That check against the abuses of government needs privilege to act – privilege which Harper is trying to intimidate into disuse with this vexatious lawsuit.
Canada's libel laws are quite backwards. Other English-speaking countries have long since amended their libel laws to prevent abuses just like this one, and, indeed, this case may be the very one which will lead to common-law changes to allow for scrutiny of public figures without the implied threat of a tort.
We can only hope Harper fails. Otherwise freedom of expression in this country will be eroded to the detriment of us all.
Except those in power with something to hide.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/14/2008 03:50:00 PM
Monday, May 12, 2008
[Section 15] Crookes lawsuits are not dismissed
The news of Crookes' cuberlibel suits demise is, sadly, greatly exagerated.
It was recently announced that the BC Court of Appeal repeated the finding of a lower court and threw out part of one lawsuit. This eliminates Yahoo as a defendant, and affects several other defendants. It does not, however, end any of Crookes lawsuits as he is suing over a great many things.
The lawsuit in question, Crookes v. Holloway et. al., does involve me, and the ruling does help; however, the claim that a wiki I helped manage had a link to a link to a site he objects to remains. The principle defendant, Kate Holloway, is still in the case. She has launched a counter-suit against Andy Shadrack, a former Green Party of Canada councillor, political organizer, and federal GPC candidate.
All of the other lawsuits also remain, with the very important Crookes v. Openpolitics up for trial this Fall.
The defendants continue to need your help. Please donate using the PayPal button on the right sidebar.
What this partial dismissal is about
Crookes was claiming that Yahoo was responsible for the content of a private Yahoo group named GPC-Members. He was also claiming that all of the moderators were responsible for the content, even though content moderation was passive -- that is, posts were not approved before posting.
The judge did not rule on any of the above.
What she ruled was that Crookes had failed to prove that the alleged libel was ever published in BC. As easy as it is to bring forward a libel case in this country, plaintiffs are still obligate to satisfy the court beforehand that certain key criteria have been met, including the issue of whther or not the material was actually published in the jurisdiction in question.
As Crookes failed to present any evidence that anyone in BC viewed the private material, the entire claim involving the GPC-Members group was thrown out.
Crookes himself was not a member of the group, and only knew of its content from a third party, presumed to not be a resident of BC.
Crookes can appeal this to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), however, it is not likely that the SCC would even hear the case. Most appeals to the SCC are denied a hearing.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/12/2008 11:35:00 AM
It was recently announced that the BC Court of Appeal repeated the finding of a lower court and threw out part of one lawsuit. This eliminates Yahoo as a defendant, and affects several other defendants. It does not, however, end any of Crookes lawsuits as he is suing over a great many things.
The lawsuit in question, Crookes v. Holloway et. al., does involve me, and the ruling does help; however, the claim that a wiki I helped manage had a link to a link to a site he objects to remains. The principle defendant, Kate Holloway, is still in the case. She has launched a counter-suit against Andy Shadrack, a former Green Party of Canada councillor, political organizer, and federal GPC candidate.
All of the other lawsuits also remain, with the very important Crookes v. Openpolitics up for trial this Fall.
The defendants continue to need your help. Please donate using the PayPal button on the right sidebar.
What this partial dismissal is about
Crookes was claiming that Yahoo was responsible for the content of a private Yahoo group named GPC-Members. He was also claiming that all of the moderators were responsible for the content, even though content moderation was passive -- that is, posts were not approved before posting.
The judge did not rule on any of the above.
What she ruled was that Crookes had failed to prove that the alleged libel was ever published in BC. As easy as it is to bring forward a libel case in this country, plaintiffs are still obligate to satisfy the court beforehand that certain key criteria have been met, including the issue of whther or not the material was actually published in the jurisdiction in question.
As Crookes failed to present any evidence that anyone in BC viewed the private material, the entire claim involving the GPC-Members group was thrown out.
Crookes himself was not a member of the group, and only knew of its content from a third party, presumed to not be a resident of BC.
Crookes can appeal this to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), however, it is not likely that the SCC would even hear the case. Most appeals to the SCC are denied a hearing.
--
Posted By Mark Francis to Section 15 at 5/12/2008 11:35:00 AM
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)