(About 4 pages long)
When does it end?
I finish sending off my June 9 emails that include my blog about Page DePape. In that communication, I call Tony Clement and his band of Conservative renegades “criminal”. I stumble across the CTV evening news.
There is good Conservative Clement’s face on the television. A year after the G-8 conference was held in Good Ol’ Boy Tony’s Ontario cottage country riding, another “auditor” is lambasting the Conservative Good Ol’ Boys Club as if they were the Good Ol’ Liberals Bad Boy Club of 2004. Remember that one about the good old lawyer Gomery and the Good Ol’ Boys and Girls Club of Lawyers made richer because of an issue over abused taxes?
In 2010, the Conservatives spent $169 million on a G-20 event that cost France $29 million to host, in “terrorist vulnerable” Europe, of all places, in 2011. Just luckily for Mr. Clement, another elected lawyer by the way, a lot of the money for the “Gee, only 8 of us should rule the world!” went into his riding. And, a year later, we pay another highly paid “auditor” to expose what real democracy would have stopped over a year ago.
Yes, read my blog/email of yesterday. Yes, I dare to say that, if we did not have criminals in our Parliaments and courts, we would have less need for highly paid “auditors”. BUT, yes, even the likes of Elizabeth May and her pending “Green Party candidates” have become servants to the illegal instead of defenders of the rights of all citizens.
Yes, Green Party “candidate” Sandra Finley was delivered a copy of the first edition of my book on a dark March 2, 2011 night. I dropped it off at her “pre-election” meeting of her Saskatoon branch of that “party”. Her Party was already starting to “organize” because they smelled “election fever”. If this Party had become defenders of democracy instead of eager hopefuls to the sense that the vote would give them power and privilege, then our “democracy” would recognize this, made record of in my book.
The function of our bureaucracies is solely to policy and law. Our bureaucracies, laws and policies are supposedly designed for the public good. What has happened to enable these elected people to think that their gaining of elected position then gives them special entitlements?
IF Elizabeth May AND Sandra Finley AND every elected or wannabe elected representative had read my communications (Yes, Ms. May, you were approached more than once about what I was experiencing in Canada’s “justice” and electoral systems after 2004) or my book, as it was offered, then the farcical “election” debates of 2011 would have discussed this.
Our constitution promised “all citizens” equivalency AND freedom of speech. That constitution arrived in Canada in the very month that I had been fired from my Ontario government position. If you read the book, you will read the details behind why a corrupted Conservative government was challenged by little bureaucrat me (before my one year probation as a 29 year old civil servant was up).
What should make every citizen madder than hell was this detail that was not discussed in my blog/email of yesterday.
I was told by whom to shut up, even on “professional forester” issues? A lawyer, who was supposedly acting on “my behalf”. The book gives the detailed discoveries that this “legal professional”, Alick Ryder, worked on behalf of a big civil service union. The book reveals that, by 2007, I had data that showed that Alick Ryder was a generous donor to the NDP.
So, months after our constitution arrived in Canada, “expert” people like Ryder told citizens inside our bureaucracies that “democracy” was not about making politicians accountable on a daily basis. No, said the legal expert, while not giving the bureaucrat a copy of any law to read themselves, the public servant must serve the elected, not the public.
IF you read our constitution, there is no discrimination against bureaucrats. They are protected by our constitution even when they dare to challenge politicians breaking their own policies. (By the way, I support that the “bureaucrat” has a duty to first try to warn the poobah politician/bigger bureaucrat when they are viewed as being in violation of law (unless blatant Criminal conduct is in progress) or their own publicly stated policies before seeking outside support. The record is that I tried to do that in 1982 but was blocked by higher bureaucrats who told me to simply do as I had been told).
Why are bureaucrats no longer protected by our constitutional right to freed speech?
Why did lawyers in the United States of America and Canada declare that Blacks and First Nations could be shoved off onto discriminating, oppressive, racist tracts of discrimination after the International law of 1948 (read my blog/email of yesterday to find links to my http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca “About the Law” page that discusses that international law)? Because the attitude became that partisan politics gave the partisan-implicated lawyers a right to illegal entitlement because “the vote” had entitled their friends to empowerment. If the blatant culture of racism could prevail, why should not the tradition of elected position giving the elected privileges over the rest of us also not prevail? Despite the legal promises of 1948, the illegal role of racism and partisan privilege continued. And continues.
Aw, yes, DePape may be a temporary symbol of a growing realization that a deep, deep problem exists in this nation. It exists because politicians and their “legal expert” buds have brow beaten bumbling, placid bureaucrats and the public into believing that only “Whistle Blowing” legislation will protect bumbling, complacent bureaucrats.
I have news for you.
The Whistle Blowing legislation already exists. It came in the international law that made even the politician and the “judge” our equivalents “under the law”. It came in the Canadian constitution that continued this premise. And, it was strengthened in a Criminal Code that forbids even cops and bureaucrats from abusing their positions to side with any partisan, while our rights disappear.
Yes, visit that http://TakeBackDemocracy.ca “About the Law” page to come to this understanding.
People like Ryder abused their positions to intimidate us into believing that the bureaucrat MUST submit to the pompous politician. Ryder, and the whole legal profession, violate our trust AND our laws. Read my book to see how big shot lawyers, like Liberal Bill Graham and his Conservative equivalents, are positioned in our law schools as “esteemed experts”. And, if they are partisan, why would the young lawyer not eagerly join the same political parties in the hopes that they will indeed prosper? And that this is “just” because, after all, “their” political party is more amoral than “those others”.
The base problem comes back to this. “Education” too conveniently becomes “indoctrination”. Indoctrination too easily convinces the friend of the politician that our legal right to completely impartial institutions of “justice” does not include the right for the citizen to not face the promoted friends of politicians in our courts.
This has gone on since 1948. It accelerated after the reiteration of this legally compelled promise in 1982. BUT, when the Criminal Code of 1989 forbade Trudeau and Mulroney and Turner and Chretien and Martin (all elected lawyers) and Harper (a patsy who consults the “legal expertise” of his best elected lawyer friends named MacKay and Nicholson and so forth) from exercising illegal influence, these arrogant people passed new laws making new “courts”. They called them “ethics commissioners” and “auditor generals”. They created them for themselves. This became collectively good for all of the partisans in Ottawa because they were, after all, elected and hence “entitled” to make themselves above the rest of us.
Regrettably, the base principle of democracy, that even the bureaucrat should be able to shout justifiable warnings without fear into our free press to make politicians accountable to what they would hide from us daily, has been suppressed so that we must put up with the reports of scandalous behaviour a year after it happens, and weeks after Clement is re-elected without this being presented, even as a full-blown election issue.
Yes, my anger is breathless. We would not have such need for so many bureaucrats auditing auditors, our bureaucrats and accountants, who are supposed to be loyal first and foremost to the public interest, IF our courts indeed enforced and protected the constitutional right to any and all citizens, even our bureaucrats, to speak out in the defence and promotion of democratic institutions dedicated to protecting the principles of honesty and truth in the daily conduct of every politician and bureaucrat and appointed individual who is supposed to be an agent of “democracy”. Yes, breathless anger.
No. With the help of a deeply rotted, partisan implicated “legal profession” and courts now filled with these partisan buggers, our politicians have created a culture of entitlement that is protected by partisan implicated courts. And by partisan implicated provincial and national “policing” forces.
What the citizen should think carefully about is this.
IF Tony Clement would do this in a “minority government” situation and our PM flies off after the last election to a Boston hockey game in a jet that costs us $10,000 per hour, while search crews are cut back in Newfoundland, what abuses will we face under these arrogant bastards under a “majority” government? And the Conservative Party will rush to say that their political coffers paid for this latest jet-setting PM? Remember that partisan coffers are simply re-directed taxes, made possible under "new rules" passed by these arrogant buggers, that would otherwise go to search crews or freed access to principled "justice".
We can change this. Peacefully.
We can do this by using the power of our voice. We can do this by returning credibility to our institutions of justice. I invite you to visit my book to understand the record of history that led to this arrogant “culture of entitlement”. Then, understanding the reasons behind my strong exhortations, I trust that you will visit the TakeBackDemocracy.ca page at the end of next week to understand how, with a little courage, we can peacefully oust these criminals in Ottawa and return this nation’s Parliament to truly being for the people.
All of this abuse of power and privilege will end only when we raise collective voices to insist that it ends. Do we have the courage to do this? Or will we make DePape our temporary, and wrong, hero and then turtle in the hope that someone else will change all of this for us?
No comments:
Post a Comment