Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Toronto police settle human rights complaint with man who was pulled over



Racial profiling: Toronto police settle human rights complaint with man who was pulled over

Clem Marshall alleges he was told by an officer that he didn’t look like someone who could afford the expensive car he was driving when he was pulled over in Parkdale.
Racial profiling: Toronto police settle human rights complaint with man who was pulled over
Colin McConnell / Toronto Star
Clem Marshall, a Toronto man who launched a human rights complaint after he was pulled over by police in Parkdale in 2009, has settled with the board and the force for an undisclosed amount.
The city’s police board and the force have settled with a Toronto man who alleges in a human rights complaint that he was racially profiled when he was pulled over in Parkdale in 2009.
Clem Marshall, a former teacher with the Toronto public board, says an officer justified the stop by telling him he didn’t look like someone who could afford the black 2009 Nissan Altima he was driving.
“It’s not racial profiling,” said an officer according to Marshall’s complaint. “Two black guys driving a car like mine in Parkdale meant crack … That’s just the way it is,” the officer told Marshall, who is in his 60s.
“The taste of humiliation is extraordinary,” said Marshall in an interview Monday. “It’s like the taste of nothing else.” The Toronto resident said that at his age, the feelings were completely unexpected.
Marshall says he handed over his driver’s license, ownership and insurance, but when he asked why he was being pulled over, the officer yelled “Who do you think you are, f- - -ing Obama?”
“I was publicly humiliated because of my race,” wrote Marshall, a well-respected Africentric scholar.
Marshall and his passenger testified at the tribunal that the officers told him later he was pulled over because he didn’t make a full stop at an intersection, which they both dispute. In the end, the officers issued a $120 ticket because Marshall’s ownership wasn’t signed.
The complaint went to a full tribunal hearing in November, but midway through, the board and force said they wanted to settle. The terms of the settlement are confidential and neither the Toronto Police Service nor the board has admitted any liability.
Marshall said he will put the money toward organizing events where African-Canadian youth can share their experiences with the justice system and learn about their rights.

Wednesday, May 8, 2013




Mark Bourrie: Canadian politicians were once world-class boozehounds


Mitch Hepburn

Although it’s been more than 30 years, I can still very clearly remember the first time that I found a drunken Governor General in downtown Toronto.
It was late at night, and the former viceroy was crouched over, leaning on something on Richmond Street, so drunk that he could barely speak. My first instinct was to keep him as a pet, but I’d had enough experience with drunks, so I got him a cab, rolled him into it, and counted on him to settle accounts later.
A few months later, I had an almost identical experience with a former premier of Ontario, and did pretty much the same thing.
I don’t know if highly recognizable former leaders still stagger around downtown Toronto, but if they do, I suppose I’d read about it in the papers. There is no such thing as a private life anymore.

People started wagging the finger at inebriated politicians nearly 20 years ago, when the Parliamentary Press Gallery, spurred on by Jean Chrétien’s hench-thugs, confronted then-Liberal leader John Turner with allegations of heavy drinking. Recently, in his book Elusive Destiny, Carleton University professor Paul Litt described the confrontation and got this quote from Turner: “Do I have a drinking problem? What the hell. Have you ever seen me not perform?”
Until quite recently, the press gallery was in no position to throw stones. We had a beer-filled pop machine in the gallery lounge until the late 1990s. One Senate staffer used to come in at lunchtime and shotgun a half dozen beers before toddling back to his very important work. No one wrote anything about it, probably because he was a former member of the gallery.
The gallery has many booze-soaked skeletons. When the original parliament building went up before Confederation, it was a warren of apartments and blind pigs. There were very few offices. MPs didn’t get them: They did their paperwork at the desks in the House of Commons.
Politicians knew that Confederation itself had floated through on waves of free booze. Christopher Moore, in his book 1867: How the Fathers Made a Deal, describes how Ontario and Quebec delegates to the Charlottetown Conference of 1864 showed up with a boatload of hooch and went from one party to another. Small wonder so many of the Fathers of Confederation in Robert Harris’s famous painting are sitting down or appear to be leaning on something.
National Archives
National Archives
It’s also no secret that our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was cursed with the unquenchable thirst. But most people don’t realize that many of his opponents were, too.
The temperance movement, the Parliament Buildings Fire of 1916, and the demand from MPs for offices and staffs squeezed out most of the parliamentary saloons. MPs found it inconvenient and embarrassing to leave the hill to buy booze. So the press gallery stepped in and set up a bootlegging operation that thrived for more than 60 years.
Supposedly, it was run by the gallery’s manager, who was also the bartender in the press lounge. Whisky was sold by the shot or the bottle. Security guards came in for top-ups, while gallery messengers delivered twenty-sixers and forties to MPs who called in their orders. The bootlegging topped up the meager salaries; supposedly, none of the journalists shared in the lolly.
That doesn’t mean they didn’t benefit. Back in the days when the House of Commons had night sittings and MPs actually showed up to debate, the gallery lounge on the third floor of the Centre Block was a watering hole for thirsty MPs. They also joined in the marathon poker games that saw paycheques and secrets change hands.
Everyone, including William Lyon Mackenzie King, knew what was going on, and even though King was a proud honorary member of the gallery, he rarely drank, and certainly didn’t take the risk of loosening up with reporters. But he did complain to them, and to anyone who would listen, about a politician whose lifestyle, only hinted at during the Depression and the war years, was scandalous by any standards.
Mitch Hepburn, an onion farmer from St. Thomas, Ontario, arrived in Ottawa in 1926 as a boy MP and immediately took up serious boozing. One of his drinking buddies was Chubby Power, who later spent much of the war in an alcoholic haze while supervising the Air Ministry. (Power was the grandfather of Lawrence Cannon, a former Tory minister, now Ambassador to France.)
The partying Liberal backbenchers nicknamed their row of seats “Dynamite Abbey” and, in 1928, they took their show on the road. In his book Just Call Me Mitch, historian John Saywell describes how 40 western MPs went on a rolling binge through southern Ontario, chaperoned by Hepburn and his drinking buddy Eddie Odette, an MP from Tilbury, near Chatham, Ont. They rode in elegant private railway cars provided by the Michigan Central Railway. The booze came from Hiram Walker, makers of the ever-popular Canadian Club.
The province had just begun to escape the grip of prohibition, but Parliament Hill has always been exempt from Ontario liquor laws.
Like many of his ‘tarts,’ as insiders labeled them, she called him ‘Chief,’ but sometimes she used a special pet name, ‘Uncle Dudley’
By the election of 1930, some of Hepburn’s friends were already worried about his health. Mackenzie King noted in his dairy that he was disgusted by Hepburn’s “danger of drinking & getting mixed up with women.”
Four years later, at the age of 38, Hepburn was premier of Ontario. King couldn’t get enough stories of his drinking and whoring. On one boozy trip to the Bahamas, Hepburn, who’d left his wife on the onion farm, was supposed to have lunch with the governor, but the premier missed the appointment because he’d rushed to a Nassau brothel as a soon as his ship docked.
On board that ship, Hepburn had met a 20-year-old Liberal volunteer who spent two days in the premier’s cabin and, a few weeks after he returned to Queen’s Park, became his mistress and a new member of Ontario’s public service. Like many of his “tarts,” as insiders labeled them, she called him “Chief,” but sometimes she used a special pet name, “Uncle Dudley.”
Sir Anthony Jenkins, a visiting British journalist, visited Hepburn’s suite in the King Edward Hotel in 1938. He was warmly greeted by the well-lubricated premier and was introduced to his friends: “They were a doctor and a member of his government and two attractive girls who sprawled on a sofa and called the Prime Minister ‘Chief’ and who generally lent an unparliamentary air to the place. A big broad-shouldered fellow with the supple movements of a trained athlete mixed drinks …”
“It was evident that he acted as a sort of bodyguard-cum-gentleman’s servant to the Prime Minister. The latter called him “Eddie,” but the girls called him “Bruiser.”
Almost all the Canadian media ignored Jenkins’s story, but when Saturday Night magazine ran an excerpt, Hepburn threatened to sue. He backed down after his drinking buddies said they wouldn’t perjure themselves.
Little snippets made the papers, like when Hepburn’s brain trust was denounced in the legislature by the Tories as “the besotted Board of Control of the Liberal Party.” But through most of his term, Hepburn faced opposition leaders who themselves were heavy drinkers. Question periods often were boozy messes. Years later, Hepburn died in his sleep at the age of 56, in the same farmhouse bedroom in which he was born.
Elsewhere, politicians’ after-hours (and even on-the-job) boozing was tolerated or ignored by the media. Nazi and French fascist cartoonists labeled Winston Churchill a drunk, but no one in Britain made his drinking a serious issue.
Canwest News Service
Canwest News ServiceWinston Churchill
Churchill, according to biographers William Manchester and Paul Reid, started wartime days with a glass of white wine (because he wouldn’t drink tea with canned milk). He would spend the morning with a weak Johnny Walker Red Scotch and soda, replenished from time to time with soda water. At lunch, there was always Pol Roger champagne, and maybe some port. (Pol Roger eventually launched a brand of Churchill champagne because the great man had been such a dedicated customer.)
Lunch ended with one or two brandies (usually a 50-year-old Hine.) After a nap, Churchill started the afternoon with another whiskey. At dinner, there would be more champagne and brandy, and evenings – if there was no party requiring more serious drinking – ended with a few more ports, and perhaps one final whiskey while Churchill worked past midnight in his study.
But these days, fingers wag. Alberta premier Ralph Klein, embarrassed by coverage of his scolding of a homeless man in 2001, went on the wagon soon afterwards. (So did the drunk he berated.) And now Toronto mayor Rob Ford is being tailed by reporters hoping to prove his drinking is out of control.
Two or three generations ago, the lifeblood of Canadian politics had somewhat higher octane because of the alcohol that was mixed with it. But now we’re a country of Carrie Nations, and many of the axe-wielding saloon busters get prime real estate in Canada’s media.


Friday, December 28, 2012

Chicago 2012 Homicide Total Reaches 500

Flint Foto Factory
The fatal shooting of a 40-year-old man on Wednesday brought the Chicago Police Department's official 2012 homicide tally to 500. This is the first time since 2008 that Chicago has recorded more than 500 homicides in one year. This is only the second time since 2003 that the murder rate has been over 500
Police say the victim Nathaniel T. Jackson was shot in the head while standing on the sidewalk in front of a convenience store in the West Side neighborhood of Austin.
According to the Tribune, homicides are up 17 percent , and shootings are up 11 percent over last year. Local activists with a different process of tallying violent deaths (including police-involved deaths) had calculated 500 homicides on Dec. 15.
Year: Total Homicides
2001: 667
2002: 656
2003: 601
2004: 453
2005: 451
2006: 471
2007: 448
2008: 513
2009: 459
2010: 436
2011: 433

Friday, September 21, 2012

Arctic sea ice melts

Arctic sea ice has melted to a record low this year, say researchers at the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center.
According to scientists like David Barber from the University of Manitoba, what happens to Arctic sea ice is a huge indicator on what will happen to Canada and the world in terms of climate change.
“The thaw this year broke all the records that we had previous to this and it didn’t just break them, it smashed them," Barber told CBC News.
“The Arctic is changing so rapidly right now and that is connected to our global climate system, so it’s really a precursor to what is coming for the rest of the planet and it really should be an eye-opener for people.”
Scientists say that at this rate there could be an ice-free Arctic as early as the summer of 2015.

Arctic sea ice melts to record low

Posted: Sep 20, 2012 11:04 PM ET

Last Updated: Sep 20, 2012 10:53 PM ET


Thursday, September 20, 2012

No TTC subsidy for new LRT

Stintz to Metrolinx: Don’t expect a TTC subsidy for new LRT

Published 1 hours, 20 minutes ago

Metrolinx Metrolinx plans to run light rail vehicles similar to this on the Eglinton Scarborough Crosstown line, which the provincial agency wants to operate separately from the TTC.
Tess Kalinowski
Transportation Reporter

Toronto taxpayers, who paid $500 million to subsidize TTC operations this year, won’t help pay for privately operated transit lines, Toronto Transit Commission chair Karen Stintz has warned the province.
A day after the TTC got word that Metrolinx has decided to privatize the operation and maintenance of Toronto’s provincially funded $8.4 billion LRTs, Stintz took a hard line on the TTC’s contribution to their operating costs.
“If we’re not operating those lines, we’re not paying those costs … I don’t know where they’re going to get the money,” she said.
Stintz was responding to a suggestion from Ontario Infrastructure and Transportation Minister Bob Chiarelli that Metrolinx and the TTC are still negotiating an operating subsidy for the new lines.
Chiarelli defended the government’s decision to use a public-private partnership to build, design, finance, maintain and operate the LRTs, saying its Infrastructure Ontario agency had an “almost flawless” record of bringing projects in on time and on budget.
“There have been TTC projects that have been long overdue and sometimes much over budget,” he said.
Like most public transit, the new LRTs won’t cover their costs through the fare box when they open in eight or nine years.
“Every transit system in North America has some government subsidies to cover off the operating. That’s not unusual,” Chiarelli said.
“But the Eglinton-Scarborough Crosstown will save the TTC the cost of buses. So they will have a significant savings by not having to run the buses,” he said.
Shifting the bus savings to the Eglinton-Crosstown was the plan until the TTC was cut out of the picture, Stintz said.
“In the original model we would operate the line. So anything we didn’t spend on buses we would contribute to the Crosstown. The same applied to Finch and Sheppard and (the conversion to light rail of) the Scarborough RT. But if we’re not operating those lines we’re not paying those costs,” she said.
Although Stintz said she was pleased by Metrolinx’s assurances that TTC riders wouldn’t pay an additional fare to ride the new transit, “It’s still unclear how the TTC sets fares for a private operator,” she said.
“The fare and the fare-sharing is a future discussion,” said Jack Collins, Metrolinx vice-president for Rapid Transit Implementation.
But the parties have agreed in principle that it will be a one-fare system, “that whatever the TTC’s prevailing fare is in 2020, that will be the fare the customer pays,” he said.
The details will be part of the master agreement between Metrolinx, the city and the TTC, which isn’t yet complete, said Collins.
He downplayed concerns about the impact of integrating the LRTs with the TTC, saying it would work as seamlessly as the privately operated Canada Line, which connects with the rest of the Vancouver transit system.
How the two systems will collect and divide fare revenues is still undecided, said Collins.
Also unclear, said a Metrolinx spokesman, is how the private operator would move riders in the event of a service disruption on the LRT.
Although the TTC would have preferred to maintain and operate the LRTs itself, CEO Andy Byford said Toronto transit officials will be “100 per cent” co-operative.
“To do otherwise would disadvantage the customer, so there’s no way we’re going to do that. I don’t think it’s ideal having two operators … there’s potential for confusion, and that’s what we’ve got to avoid,” he said.
With nearly a decade before the lines open, “We ought to be able to get our act together in that time,” he said.
The LRTs will have to have their own control rooms and evacuation procedures so there’s no question of who is in charge in an emergency, he said.
Byford, who worked in a public-private rail system in England, said it’s safety-critical that the TTC and Metrolinx co-operate in the design of the stations where the subway and LRT will intersect, at Kennedy, Eglinton West and Yonge St.
While Metrolinx insists that a privatized operation is better for taxpayers, some transit watchers say it will be a mess for riders.
“It’s a disaster waiting to happen. They do not have the service planning tools or any of it to make this work.” said left-wing Councillor Gord Perks (Parkdale-High Park).
“What lesson should we take from the (Highway) 407, eHealth and ORNGE? Don’t set up an arm’s-length decision-making body and have them set up contracts with the private sector.”
Adding a private operator to the mix will inevitably muddy the customer experience, said Toronto transit advocate and blogger Steve Munro.
At the very least, riders transferring between the TTC and the Crosstown will probably have to tap on and tap off with their electronic Presto fare card at the transfer point.
“Metrolinx is going to want to know down to the last detail how many people, and where they are actually riding their part of the line,” Munro said. “They’re going to be doing lots of tub-thumping for tap-on and tap-off,” Munro said.

Wednesday, August 22, 2012

‘Aryan’ Canada


 

John A. Macdonald wanted an ‘Aryan’ Canada

 
 
 
 
 

Mary Mah, 85, left, and Gim Wong, 84, both head tax payers, share a moment on June 16, 2006 before boarding a train from Vancouver to Ottawa to hear a formal apology.

Photograph by: LYLE STAFFORD, REUTERS

In 1885, John A. Macdonald told the House of Commons that, if the Chinese were not excluded from Canada, “the Aryan character of the future of British America should be destroyed …” This was the precise moment in the histories of Canada and the British Dominions when Macdonald personally introduced race as a defining legal principle of the state.
He did this not just in any piece of legislation, but in the Electoral Franchise Act, an act that defined the federal polity of adult male property holders and that he called “my greatest achievement.”
Macdonald’s comments came as he justified an amendment taking the vote away from anyone “of Mongolian or Chinese race.” He warned that, if the Chinese (who had been in British Columbia as long as Europeans) were allowed to vote, “they might control the vote of that whole Province” and their “Chinese representatives” would foist “Asiatic principles,” “immoralities,” and “eccentricities” on the House “which are abhorrent to the Aryan race and Aryan principles.” He further claimed that “the Aryan races will not wholesomely amalgamate with the Africans or the Asiatics” and that “the cross of those races, like the cross of the dog and the fox, is not successful; it cannot be, and never will be.” For Macdonald, Canada was to be the country that restored a pure Aryan race to its past glory, and the Chinese threatened this purity.
Lest it be thought that Macdonald was merely expressing the prejudices of the age, it should be noted that his were among the most extreme views of his era. He was the only politician in the parliamentary debates to refer to Canada as “Aryan” and to justify legalized racism on the basis not of alleged cultural practices but on the grounds that “Chinese” and “Aryans” were separate species. Even B.C. representatives who had been calling for Chinese exclusion for years objected to the supposed cultural practices of the Chinese, not to their biology.
In contrast, the second prime minister of Canada, Alexander Mackenzie, had earlier refused discriminatory proposals on the grounds that they involved invidious distinctions that were “dangerous and contrary to the law of nations and the policy which controlled Canada.”
Even members of Macdonald’s own government would have been disturbed by his comments. His secretary of state and Quebec lieutenant, Joseph-Adolphe Chapleau, had been a member of the Royal Commission on Chinese Immigration that debunked common anti-Chinese prejudices. A careful reading of the Commons debates suggests that Macdonald’s comments actually shocked members of the House. Indignation over the introduction of race as a defining characteristic of Canadianness was strong in the Senate. So strong that Senators, including many Macdonald appointees, debated whether they could get away with voting the legislation down, even though it had taken Macdonald two years to get it through the House of Commons. The Senate ultimately did defeat further anti-Chinese measures in 1886 and 1887.
The 1885 act fixed in law the idea that, at the highest levels in Canada, “race” could be the basis for voting rights. As the Opposition predicted, once the genie of race was out of the bottle, it had far-reaching effects. Ultimately race would define citizenship, immigration rights, access to jobs and services. In typically haphazard Canadian fashion, by the late 1940s exclusions based on race had been extended piecemeal federally, provincially and municipally. These enactments caught up people from India, Japanese Canadians, First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, African and Jewish Canadians as well as Chinese Canadians.
Meanwhile, invidious distinctions of race justified practices as diverse as the residential schools and the denial of shelter to refugees of the Holocaust during the Second World War, as one official notoriously said, because, “None is too many.” “Race” as a defining characteristic of political rights would only disappear in 1960 when so-called status Indians gained the right to vote.
John A. Macdonald’s Aryan vision lives on today in contemporary imaginings of Canadianness. As a recent Citizen editorial on the removal of an apparently Asian figure from the new $100 bill correctly noted, it lives on in the mistaken assumption that whiteness is neutral and that an Asian cannot represent Canadians. We also see it in the repeated assumption that most often imagines Joe Canada as white, if not as Macdonald’s “Aryan”.
In his announcement last week that the Ottawa River Parkway was being renamed for Macdonald, Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird expressed the hope that it would stimulate Canadians’ interest in their histories. Perhaps interest in the histories of all Canadians would lead Baird and the federal government to reconsider whether in a multiracial, multi-ethnic society like that of Canada today, we should be naming public monuments after white supremacists.
How does the “Alexander Mackenzie Parkway” sound?
Timothy J. Stanley’s recent book, Contesting White Supremacy: School Segregation, Anti-Racism and the Making of Chinese Canadians (UBC Press, 2011), won a Clio award from the Canadian Historical Association.
 
 
 

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Parking ticket that’s illegal on Tim Hortons

Parking ticket on private land? It may be the ticket that’s illegal

 

Kaleigh Rogers

Kaleigh Rogers/TORONTO STAR Jonathan Sutcliffe, 23, holds up the convincing yellow ticket he received in a Tim Hortons parking lot in June.
They say no good deed goes unpunished and Jonathan Sutcliffe would likely agree.
Early last month, when a friend called him up and asked if he would drive him to the hospital for x-rays, Sutcliffe didn’t hesitate to say yes.
“Anyone who knows me will usually call me to give them a ride because they know I don’t say ‘no,’ or ask for gas money,” he said.
“He needed my help and I was happy to help him.”
But after getting slapped with a heavy parking ticket the last time he accompanied a pal to Rouge Valley Centenary hospital in Scarborough, the 23-year-old decided instead to park in the lot of a Tim Hortons across the street.
When he returned to his vehicle 30 minutes later, Sutcliffe was shocked to find a yellow slip under his wiper. A closer look at the ticket showed it wasn’t issued by the City of Toronto, but by a private firm called Parking Control Unit.
The ticket — labelled as a ‘parking invoice’ — was for a whopping $250. However, details on the back of the ticket explained the price would drop to $25 if payment was made within 10 days — $50 if made within 28 days.
Sutcliffe’s first instinct was to look up the company’s website on his phone. He said the website “looked pretty ridiculous,” and his calls to the company were directed straight to payment options, so he decided to take the ticket home.
After looking online and finding other individuals who were questioning the bizarre tickets, Sutcliffe decided to go to his local police division to find out if the ticket was legitimate.
“The cop basically said: ‘Don’t worry about it. I’ve seen these before. It’s garbage. It’s fake,’” Sutcliffe said.
He decided not to pay the ticket, but has held onto it in case the company or a collections agency tries to contact him. So far, nobody has.
According to Dave Vanrooyen, operations manager for Parking Control Unit, these notices are within the limits of city bylaws.
“The Impark way of doing business, which is giving consent on private property and posting the fee and posting the terms of use on the property, is legal,” he explained.
“So it doesn’t violate the consumer protection that the City of Toronto has.”
However, the relevant 2004 city bylaw states that agencies cannot issue tickets demanding payment in relation to vehicles parked on private property — only a municipal enforcement officer can do so.
There is one exception: Impark and similar lots are specifically and clearly commercial lots, so they are allowed to issue tickets enforcing payment on anyone who overstays their paid time.
However, all other private lots, such as a Tim Hortons, may only issue City of Toronto tickets. Any other form of parking notice demanding payment breaks the bylaw and should be reported, according to Bruce Robertson, director of licensing for the city.
“If that happens, they should phone municipal licensing and standards and make a complaint and we’ll look into it,” he said.
Sutcliffe was relieved to hear this and said he’ll probably make the call. For now, he’s been spreading the word about the iffy tickets through the Toronto page of online aggregator site, Reddit, warning other potential parkers to check their yellow slips carefully.