Raging Duff

I'm good with being Tasered if the alternative is a round or two from a Glock 9. But that's not how the RCMP used the device on Robert Dziekanksi, or how it was REPORTEDLY used in the incidents leading to death in a dozen other cases we know of. In the hands of some cops, it's a shock-and-awe tool, an instantaneous-punishment delivery system.
Let's be honest. I remember how the Montreal cops at Station 9 on St. Paul St. used to take reluctant prisoners to the top of a staircase and — with their hands tied — give them a push.
"Your honour, the cops beat up my client," the lawyers would say.
"He tripped and fell going down the stairs," was the usual reply.
Ever hear of the 25 QPP officers cashiered or suspended for beating a professional arsonist with phone books? You put it up to the guy's head and punch it as hard as you can. No marks, but it feels like you've been kicked. I once watched the Ste. Therese cops jam a man's head in the toilet in the local copshop and flush it repeatedly. Clément Poudrier's alleged crime was mouthing the cops. Waterboarding, Quebec style.
Flashlights. Matraques. Pepper spray. Whatever was at hand was what the cops used to deal with the scum they had to deal with. Now it's the Taser.
Used as the last alternative to lethal force, the Taser is immeasurably preferable. The Police Act says the cops are permitted to use only as much force as is necessary to prevent a suspect from doing further injury to themselves or to others. It is not an extrajudicial punishment delivery system, as seems to be the case in far too many of these incidents. That's what needs to be probed, not whether we need more interpreters at our airports.

Posted by Jim Duff at 7:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In it just me, or does anyone else see the irony in the Harper Tories lowering the boom on grow ops, schoolyard pushers and anyone moving coke, crack, heroin or meth?
Isn’t this the same government that thinks lowering the maximum blood-alcohol level in the Criminal Code from point zero eight to point zero five is “counterproductive?”
Guy I know lined the closet of his St. Henri flat with aluminum foil, installed a high-intensity growlight and produces $500 worth of high-grade hydroponic sensimilla buds a month. He sells it to his hockey pals. “It means the difference between my lady staying home with the kids and going out to work,” he says. So what’s to be gained by sending him away for a mandatory minimum?
The scourge of our streets isn’t drugs. It’s alcohol. We’re a pisstank nation. The death/injury stats resulting from drunk drivers uphold that.
Meanwhile, tougher sentences for drug crimes mean we’ll need more cops, more prisons, more parole officers, more rehab services. The judges and lawyers will be busier than ever and the court system will be even more overloaded. And for what? The guy in St. Henri will get out of the business, but he and his pals will be buying their bud from the big boys and their little friends. As North America saw with Prohibition, crackdowns only serve to weed out the amateurs. Prices will remain the same, but the folks doing the selling will all be carrying guns.
Hey, don't take my word for it. Check out Buddy across the border.

Posted by Jim Duff at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

According to the polls, roughly half the population thinks the point zero eight blood-alcohol level is just fine.
Like most people who think they’re “just fine to drive” at point zero eight.
Anyone who’s spent the afternoon getting hammered in one of those police-sponsored drunk-driving tests for the local media knows that at point zero eight, you’re impaired.
Not s**tfaced, just impaired.
It’s no wonder so many people don’t want a reduced blood-alcohol level. Certainly not restaurateurs and bar owners, especially those who depend on drive-in traffic. Anyone who’s lived in Quebec knows the cops only have to park their breathalyzer unit outside chichi local watering holes and country clubs and nab some of our upright. law-abiding, platitude-spouting community leaders after they’ve poured themselves into their vehicles for the drive home.
Distinct nation is right. A nation of pisstanks.
What’s more important is that half the population recognizes we’ve got a collective drinking problem that can’t be cured with those bogus ‘awareness’ campaigns. If you’re not ‘aware’ of the dangers of driving drunk by now, you never will be.
If I was in the legislative driver’s seat, my form of awareness raising would be the immediate impoundment of one’s vehicle — for seven days if found to be driving above point zero five, for 30 days if you blow over point zero eight, and for a year if you top point one six. Brutal, immediate, draconian, repressive, totalitarian — and effective.
Now for my constructive tip of the week: When will local bars and restaurants reward designated drivers with free drinks? Complimentary club soda isn’t much to ask, yet I have yet to find anyone who extends that basic courtesy.

Posted by Jim Duff at 8:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

On the Trudeau and Salas show this morning, former Mulroney chief of staff Norman Spector tagged investigative journalist Stevie Cameron with being an informer of the RCMP on the Airbus file. He insinuated that the RCMP file was based solely on Ms. Cameron's personal vendetta against Mulroney, which had me chuckling over my oatmeal. Stevie Cameron involved in a bribery conspiracy with the former Prime Minister? You gotta be pretty heavily into the crack to conjure that one up. It's the classic scenario of attacking the messenger, with Stevie Cameron as the messenger. Spector sounds like he’s part of the Irish Eyes are Smilin’ chorus to drown out the calls for truth and lull us all back to sleep.
Stevie Cameron was not an RCMP informant in the investigation in the Airbus file. It was the other way around. Stevie Cameron was leaked information from the RCMP investigation. The RCMP fed Ms. Cameron the bank records as they had them at that time. Don't forget the Germans have over 10 thousand pages on Schreiber ( including the Canadian connection established through the Swiss bank records) which they used to prosecute the two company managers and the German politician in that tank deal to Saudi Arabia.  The German politician received $2 million in a bribe from Schreiber. He did jail time for it. That German file was shared with the RCMP. Add that to the 10 thousand pages that the RCMP have on their own and you get a 20 thousand page dissertation on Mulroney and other Canadians accused of being on the take.
Your homework assignment, conspiracy buffs: Does the justice ministry have a copy of the German police file being used to extradite Schreiber? If not, why not? If so, what does Rob Nicholson say? Hear that? That's the sound of deafening silence.

Posted by Jim Duff at 7:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

What happens if Karlheinz Schreiber loses his battle to stay in Canada? He says if he’s deported, he won’t come back to Canada to testify at any inquiry into alleged influence-peddling by former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. If Schreiber doesn’t testify, what are the chances of Mulroney being able to clear his name — or more likely, of any clear proof of malfeasance? We can already see the pattern. Yes, says Mr. Mulroney, I agreed to lobby on behalf of Mr. Schreiber’s deal with Thyssen to manufacture armoured vehicles. Yes, I agreed to lobby for his pasta franchise. That was what the $300,000 — and any other monies that might come to light — were for. No, it had nothing to do with the Air Canada Airbus deal or the MBB helicopter deal. Prove that it did. Frank Moores is dead. Brian Mulroney’s personal financial advisor Bruce Verchere is dead. Dead men tell no tales.
Whether or not Mr. Schreiber gets to sing in exchange for staying in Canada, whether or not David Johnson advises Stephen Harper there's a need for a public inquiry, Canadians now want to know why $300,000 in cash found its way into former prime minister Brian Mulroney’s hands. Was it remuneration for services rendered or services promised? It’s one thing to throw a libel chill onto Staff Sgt. Fraser Fegenwald and Stevie Cameron. It’s another to explain the provenance of all that cash in such a way that doesn’t affect Stephen Harper’s Conservatives when we next go to the polls.

Posted by Jim Duff at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Superlawyer Eddie Greenspan has to pull another legal rabbit out of his famous hat to prevent his client Karlheinz Schreiber’s extradition to Germany. Earlier today, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected Schreiber's application to remain in Canada. Crown lawyers now say Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has promised to wait 15 days before Schreiber heads back to the old country to face 46 fraud and tax-evasion charges.
We all know about Schreiber’s desperate last gambit to remain in Canada — an 87-page deposition filed two weeks ago alleging that he agreed to pay former PM Brian Mulroney $300,000 in cash while Mulroney was still in power. Yesterday, Prime Minister Stephen Harper named University of Waterloo principal David Johnston to act as the arms-length third party to advise his government on what course of action it should take — including whether there should be a public inquiry into what is essentially a civil breach-of-contract suit between Schrreiber and his old amigo.
Opposition critics want Nicholson to keep Schreiber in Canada so he can testify in the event that there is a commission of inquiry.
Here’s my question: Who wants Karlheinz Schreiber on the next plane to Germany and who wants him here to sing to a public inquiry? It’s too bad Schreiber’s lawyer Alan Greenspan called to cancel his 4:10 interview here on the DWD, because I was going to ask him who he was hoping negotiate with for Schreiber’s immunity deal and expungement of the deportation order.
There are no criminal charges yet, so he can't deal with a crown prosecutor for immunity. Anyway, a crown prosecutor doesn't have the power to expunge a deportation order. Not even Justice Minister Nicholson has that power.
Immigration minister Bev Oda would be the one to stay an immigration order and eventually expunge it.
Any immunity deal would have to have the approval of the Justice minister. But there will have to be criminal charges first and the criminal charges will be filed in a Superior court in what province?
Then that will fall in the jurisdiction of the Province where it is filed. That means that that Provincial Justice minister will have to approve and sign off on any immunity deal. Like what we saw in the Karla Teale deal. It was signed off on by the Ontario Justice minister at that time.
What did I tell you? The folks who want Schreiber outa here are more powerful than the folks who want to cut him a singing contract.

Posted by Jim Duff at 9:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Former McGill Principal and Vice-Chancellor David Johnston will conduct an impartial review of allegations respecting the financial dealings between lobbyist Karlheinz Schreiber and former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. He’ll make his recommendations for an appropriate mandate for a public inquiry by January 11, 2008.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper made the announcement the University of Waterloo president’s appointment yesterday afternoon in the House.
Now, this is NOT a public or judicial inquiry. As Harper told us last Friday, he would be appointing an independent and impartial third party to review what course of actions may be appropriate given Mr. Schreiber's new sworn allegations. These allegations remain unproven and untested in a court of law and arose in a private lawsuit.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister further nuanced his statement, saying that “If in reviewing material, the independent party finds any prima facie evidence of criminal action he or she will identify this and advise how this should be handled and what impact, if any, it should have on the nature and timing of the inquiry.
A public inquiry is a major step and one that should only be taken when it addresses Canadians' interest, not those of the various parties, whether Mr. Schreiber, Mr. Mulroney or political parties. That is why it is important that we engage the necessary independent expertise and take the time to ensure that the terms of reference meet that test."
Will there be a full judicial probe? Don't bet the Christmas goodies on it.

Posted by Jim Duff at 5:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Libel chill. The threat of a multimillion-dollar defamation suit is now the biggest factor on how these new allegations of influence-peddling against former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney are being handled by the media.
L. Ian Mac Donald’s column in this morning’s Gazette and the reference to the former PM being ready to sue former Liberal whip Karen Redman “down to her socks” if she repeated privileged comments outside the House sounds a lot like the rhetoric that had Chretien-era justice minister Alan Rock “folding like a cheap suit” more than a decade ago, when the Airbus allegations first emerged.
That press release by longtime Mulroney mouthpiece Luc Lavoie released Monday night is full of veiled threats to '' expose the facts and the role played by all the people involved, public servants to elected officials, from lobbyists to police authorities, as well as journalists".
That's a threat against Stevie Cameron, the CBC’s 5th Estate, and the Globe and Mail as well as retired RCMP Staff Sgt. Fraser Fegenwald, Allan Rock and the RCMP investigative team involved in the initial Airbus investigation 20 years ago.
But this time, the sitting government is a minority Conservative government with everything to lose by seeming to be lifting a little finger to help Stephen Harper’s former political mentor. Ergo, no “political vendetta.”
This time around there are no lobbyists to examine because Frank Moores, the lobbyist that Mulroney is referring to, is deceased. There’s only Karlheinz Schreiber’s Hail-Mary deposition and $ 300,000 in cash payments the former PM has admitted by paying income tax on them. While Mr. Mulroney continues to enjoy the presumption of innocence, a judicial inquiry tends to shift the burden of proof away from the Crown.
I’ll reiterate something my colleagues don’t seem to grasp: The Airbus allegations have NEVER been tested in a court of law. There was no court case, no evidence presented, no refuting of any of the allegations, because the Chrétien Liberals lacked the political courage to proceed, for whatever reason.
Stevie Cameron made it pretty clear last night on the DWD she was intimidated by the threat of being sued by the Mulroney team. In substance, she stated that Schreiber can afford a top-flight lawyer like Eddie Greenspan; not everyone can do that. She was talking about herself and all of the people who exposed the truth 10 years ago. Even the superintendent of the RCMP at the time was threatened to be sued personally by the Mulroney crew, along with all of the investigators assigned to the file.
Ms. Cameron also told us the RCMP didn't want to talk to Schreiber in the last few years when Schreiber wanted to talk to them. The RCMP tried to talk to Schreiber when the Airbus investigation debuted some 10 plus years ago, but Schreiber lawyered up and refused to speak. Then when Schreiber was wanted in Germany, he knew that he had to stay in Canada.
To save his skin, he wanted to buy some insurance by talking to the RCMP and getting a deal of immunity for his testimony and a deal to stay in Canada for the rest of his life. Because of their past humiliation, the RCMP told Schreiber to get lost, because they had no desire to sustain another public pillorying.
Put yourself in Schreiber’s shoes. He was waiting for his old friends to come through for him and he was prepared to keep his mouth shut until that happened. But with his deportation hearing tomorrow and no sign of a last-minute reprieve, Schreiber filed a deposition he knew would force someone’s hand to sign an immunity deal with the guarantee that he will not be deported to Germany. We can guess that Lawyer Greenspan will negotiate for exactly that, Schreiber testifying with immunity from prosecution and a guarantee that he will be allowed to spend the last years of his life in Canada.
Now Schreiber and Greenspan have the judicial or public inquiry coming up where they can testify. Schreiber will be the star witness. Schreiber is back in the driver's seat. Will he drive the car? All they need is the immunity deal and the deal to avoid deportation. Will they get it ? Probably, but you never know. That's the grey area here. Before they get the deal the government/judicial/public inquiry will have to hear in advance what Schreiber has in the way of evidence.
Although they did in the case of the sponsorship scandal, the RCMP can't open a criminal investigation until a judicial inquiry is concluded. That is why they made the statement last night which didn't state that a criminal investigation was being launched on the new information in Schreiber's affidavit. You can't have both running in tandem, a judicial inquiry and a criminal investigation. What the RCMP will do and has probably started doing is assigning a team of new investigators to open Fegenwald’s file. Everything is now on CD. Tens of thousands of pages . The RCMP will get prepared to interview Schreiber.
Will Schreiber’s desperate gambit succeed? We’ll know by week’s end.

Posted by Jim Duff at 7:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Municipal politicians are truly amazing creatures. Five years ago, when I was denouncing the decision to dismantle Vaudreuil-Soulanges municipal police departments in favour of the Sûreté du Québec, there was nary a peep out of any of them until it was too late. For those who wonder why Ile Perrot lost its local cops, the former PQ government mandated the SQ for the Vaudreuil-Soulanges MRC because of the two borders, three Mohawk reservations and the Town of Hudson’s decision to pass a partition resolution. The Charest Liberals have said they have no intention of repealing it.
So one can only wonder why, with the SQ here to stay, the politicians were all over radio, television and print this past week, blaming the SQ for the deadly driving that resulted in last week’s death of three-year-old Bianca Leduc and the maiming of Patricia Jolicoeur last Nov. 29.
There’s no doubt we don’t get the service we pay for. The SQ’s two Vaudreuil-Soulanges MRC detachments together count 126 officers to police a region which has grown 20 percent since the SQ took over. What with sickouts, mat leaves, holidays and special assignments, they'd be lucky to have 90 cops available for shifts.
Staffing isn't a decision made at the detachment level. Here’s our question: has Vaudreuil MNA Yvon Marcoux picked up the phone to ask Public Security Minister Jacques Dupuis for 20 more officers? Did Soulanges MNA Lucie Charlebois get the Transport ministry to drop the speed limit on Ste. Angèlique? Both told us discussions are underway to increase the SQ staffing level, but what have they done?
While we’re asking, where were our mayors on this? I’ve covered almost MRC meeting for the past two years; I’ve never once heard a resolution demanding more police presence from our regional government. I’ve heard plenty of complaints the cops weren’t writing enough tickets, but if our elected officials demanded more manpower, I missed it.
The only way to make traffic safety a priority is to make it everyone’s business. St. Lazare’s Citizens Action Committee on Public Security has done exactly that with its campaign of responsible-driving traffic stops, including 1,415 on Ste. Angélique last Friday afternoon. Like the 22 campaigns and more than 11,000 traffic stops that preceded it, the CACPS and the local SQ detachment teamed up, this time supplying five cruisers and six CACPS volunteers to set up a roadblock close to the intersection of Champêtre and post a radar car on Ste-Angélique in the vicinity of rue Grand-Pré. They nailed three drivers doing well over the speed limit and encouraged hundreds more to back off the gas.
In a perfect world, the municipality would be a willing partner in all this, rather than a grudging participant looking for maximum political return. There would be a computerized reporting system where residents could file complaints, even the licence numbers of frequent offenders to bring a little visit from the SQ. Eventually, St. Lazare may come around, but their power-hoarding attitude is, sadly, the rule, rather than the exception.
As CACPS moderator Gilles Boudreau reminds us, this is all about taking collective responsibility, rather than dumping it all on the SQ. “I truly believe that the more we talk about it through the media, and the more we have concrete actions, eventually drivers will get the message that driving fast and not being responsible can lead to taking someone’s life like Bianca, or putting someone in a vegetable state like Patricia. The decision to be responsible or not lies in the driver’s hands.”

Posted by Jim Duff at 8:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

As talk show hosts, it's easy to play high and mighty, perched far above the little people as we deliver our sermons on what ails society. So it's a good idea to step down from the throne every now and then and get out into the real world of journalism.
I spent the morning in Ile Perrot. Here’s what I was told about yesterday’s accident that killed three-year-old Bianca Leduc in the side yard of a private daycare, where she and her caregiver were hanging Hallowe’en decorations.
Two cars are headed south on des Erables, a residential street being used to reroute through traffic around the major reconstruction of Blvd. Perrot. The speed limit is 30 km/h. It’s shortly after 1 p.m. The lead car, a black Sunfire, is being driven by a 17-year-old we’ll call John. Right behind him is the grey Volkswagen Golf being driven by Brandon Pardey, who turned 18 yesterday. They’re headed for Brandon’s house just down the road. Brandon works for a firm that cleans up after floods and fires and goes to a vocational school in the evening.
Brandon’s Golf is a birthday gift from his older brother. Brandon has never driven a standard before, so when John stops at the Stop sign at the intersection with Giffard, Brandon confuses the brake with the clutch. He sideswipes John, who loses control and ends up on the front lawn of the house at 82 des Erables. You can see the brake marks from John’s car on the front lawn.
Brandon never regains control. The Golf hits the concrete curb and ploughs straight through a thick cedar hedgge at the side to the house. It runs right over the little girl, whose head is underneath.
Volunteer firefighters from Ile Perrot are the first to arrive. They discover Bianca still has a strong pulse. They work quickly to jack the car up as fast as they can, but by the time they pull the little girl out from underneath, it’s obvious her injuries are fatal. By midafternoon, she’s declared dead at the Lakeshore.
I got some of this from my son, who held the little girl as the Ile Perrot firefighters jacked up the car. I got some of it from a young man I’ll call Brent. Brent lives just down the street. He’s having a bad day. He claims he jammed a camera into a photographer’s face last night. He’s Brandon’s cousin. He, Brandon and John were headed out for a night of trick-or-treating. He tells me he came on the scene to find Brandon sitting on the curb, crying.
Everyone knows everyone in this little world of pain. Brent tells me Brandon’s best friend’s cousin — or was it cousin’s best friend — is the little girl’s father. Nobody was speeding, he told me. Brandon didn’t know how to drive the freakin’ car, was all. It was an accident. He said he’ll call in this afternoon to counter the chorus demanding the death penalty or lengthy prison terms for both his friends.
We had an incredible show, with Brent and all of Brandon's friends calling in in his defence. One, Kyle, was eloquent in his argument that Brandon can't be forced to pay for all the lax sentencing and past judicial failures in this province.
By the end of the show, we had concluded that road safety is a shared responsibility. Municipalities, police, parents, teachers, politicians. No one part of that chain is any more important than the others. So before we rush to judgment on Brandon Pardey, let's reflect on our own driving habits and whether we'd done anything to help make our streets safer.

Posted by Jim Duff at 12:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)