Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Manitoba  > We're all equal under the law. Unless..........      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 1
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........Page 1 of 2    (1, 2)
I thought we were all supposed to be treated equally under the law ( hence the old expression "justice is blind" ). Apparently I was mistaken; it appears if you're a Manitoba First Nations chief the rules are different for you.

from the Winnipeg Free Press Oct. 31/09 :


Third drunk driving conviction: Wayway chief spared jail time to attend to band's H1N1 needs :

The chief of a Manitoba First Nation has avoided a jail sentence for his third drunk driving conviction because of his community's battle with the H1N1 flu virus.

Murray Clearsky, 53, was given a month-long conditional sentence this week, which allows him to remain free in the community of Waywayseecappo, located about 300 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg. Crown and defence lawyers cited "special circumstances" in not seeking custody for Clearsky.

"" said Crown attorney Shaun Sass. "Given these special circumstances, it's not contrary to the public interest to let him serve his sentence in the community."

The Crown had originally planned to seek between 14 and 30 days behind bars. Defence lawyer Jay Prober told court Clearsky has a vital public role to serve, which would be severely impacted if he were locked up at this critical time.

Clearsky was charged in December 2007 after his erratic driving caught the eye of RCMP officers doing a highway checkstop in western Manitoba. Clearsky nearly crashed into a vehicle and almost drove into the ditch while fishtailing down the highway, court was told.

Police immediately recognized him and caught a strong smell of alcohol from inside the car. Clearsky's speech was slurred and his face flushed. He was verbally combative with police and had to be restrained and lodged in the holding cells for several hours until he could sober up.

Blood-alcohol tests revealed he was double the legal limit at the time of his arrest.

"He realizes he made a mistake. He was lucky there were no accidents or injuries," said Prober.

Clearsky is the father of three young children, has a Grade 8 education and has been chief at Waywayseecappo since 1986, his lawyer said.

He was convicted in 1983 of refusing a breath sample and given a fine. Clearsky was convicted of the same charge in July 2004 and given a $1,380 fine and year-long driving prohibition. He also has a previous conviction for possession of a dangerous weapon from 1987.

"I know I should have learned from the past. I apologize for what happened," Clearsky told court during his sentencing hearing. "I know it happened quite a while back. I've done a lot of thinking since."

He has been attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings on the reserve since his arrest.

"I try to do the best I can on behalf of my people. They have a lot of trust in me," he said. "Nobody's perfect. But still, this shouldn't have happened."

Provincial court Judge Lee Ann Martin said Clearsky had failed his community.

"With your role as a chief of the band, the words that come to mind are 'Shame on you,'" said Martin. "You're in a position where people look up to you. People expect you to do better. When you're out in public you need to be stronger. You are the one who needs to be setting the example."

Clearsky must be in his home under a curfew at all times, expect when he needs to attend to reserve business. He must also abstain from alcohol and is banned from driving for the next year.


???
Clearsky said he had been at a Christmas party in a neighbouring community and was "stranded" when his driver left early.


Oh, so it's not HIS fault, it's his driver's fault... what a load of ****.

And why is his presence necessary to attend to his band's H1N1 needs? Is he the only person there that's trained on how to administer the vaccine? Whatever the reason he's needed there during the H1N1 threat, why not defer sentencing until that crisis is over then sentence him to custody? Just another example of how the legal system isn't "fair & unbiased".

Using the flawed logic displayed in this ruling, I guess the next time the sole breadwinner of a family commits a crime & is convicted, he (or she) can avoid jail time because
We've crafted a sentence that will allow him to attend to the band and their needs during this H1N1 epidemic


Just substitue the word family for the word band and problem solved.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 2
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 11/1/2009 2:36:38 PM

How will he help the concerns of his community?



Well, maybe they figure since this was his 3rd drunk driving conviction, and now the media is reporting shortages of the vaccine, he'd help out by getting drunk & killing people in his community while driving... & they're hoping he kills people before they've been immunized, thus ensuring an adequate supply of the vaccine....
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 3
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 11/1/2009 2:40:16 PM

The whole point of having a justice system is to serve the public interest, to keep law and order. He will help with the H1N1 concerns of his community (think of it as community service) and the rest of the time he will be under curfew.


Gee a curfew will work great for him.... 3rd conviction, refusing a breathalyzer on an earlier conviction, and a conviction for possesing a dangerous weapon...


Sorry, he's had enough chances to get his act together, obviously giving him a 2nd, 3rd of however many chances won't work with this guy; he should be incarceerated. That'd be a lesson for his community.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 4
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 11/1/2009 4:32:13 PM

We are talking about the North here. Life is a little more free there.


Funny, I hear about the criminal code of Canada; I never hear about the southern Canada criminal code or the northern Canada criminal code. Bottom line is that with 3 convictions of drunk driving ( never mind the weapons offence conviction) he shouldn't be given "another chance" to gethis act together; he's been given enough chances.

I wonder what the legal system's response will be if this individual gets drunk and drives again and ends up killing somone; will they take a large share of the blame for allowing this individual to be out in the community? Perhaps the ones that decided he could serve his time in his community should also be named as accesories tto mansalaughter should this happen. The story states


Murray Clearsky, 53, was given a month-long conditional sentence this week, which allows him to remain free in the community of Waywayseecappo, located about 300 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg.


Does this mean if he leaves Waywayseecappo during this time he gets jailed?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 5
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 12/9/2009 9:58:29 AM
I won't read it, can't be bothered, I'll just GOOGLE it and read all the lies the internet is full of.


All the lies the internet is full of???

Then why do you keep posting links to internet sites you happen to agree with ??


LORD DUDLEY AND LADY SUSAN CD are at it again, way over their heads discussing topics they should leave to learned others


Rozzko's law: anyone thatdoesn't agree with me 100% is wrong
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 6
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 1/16/2010 7:41:43 AM

Anyway I'm not sure what the original point of the OP was. Does it suck that this guy gets off for his 3rd DUI because he's claiming to be a leader in his community?


Yes. Could you see the legal system buying his argument if he was a samll-town reeve or mayor and letting him avoid punishment?


Margaret Trudeau was caught dead to rights drinking and driving. It was tossed out because of a technicality. And who was that CFL general manager who got off recently for sexually assaulting his children's babysitter? And didn't the son of Al Golden avoid any jail time for his crimes? So this chief is not the only one getting away with breaking the law.


All good examples of the system being subverted ( except maybe in the case of Margaret, I'm sure technicalities have resulted in non-celebrities having charges dropped too). But what's your point? This list of people got away with breaking the law, so someone else getting away with breaking the law is OK? If it's wrong it's wrong.
 Fort Garry Dark
Joined: 11/25/2005
Msg: 7
view profile
History
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/1/2010 5:20:19 PM

I thought we were all supposed to be treated equally under the law ( hence the old expression "justice is blind" ). Apparently I was mistaken; it appears if you're a Manitoba First Nations chief the rules are different for you.


Hey its not just if you are a chief.


Drunk cop crashes motorbike, gets fined
Blood-alcohol level nearly three times legal limit

His blood-alcohol level was nearly triple the legal limit. He was driving his motorcycle into oncoming traffic. He crashed into the median, injuring both himself and his helmetless female passenger.

And he walked away with a $1,500 fine, a one-year licence suspension and continued employment as a Winnipeg police officer.

The facts of Const. Daniel Aminot's August 2009 guilty plea to impaired driving and sentencing have not been reported until now. But the case is stirring debate about whether police officers should be held to a different standard than other citizens -- and forfeit their badge if convicted of a crime.

Officially, Winnipeg police will only tell the Free Press Aminot remains on "active duty" since the conclusion of his case. Given the fact a judge took away his right to drive until this coming summer, it's presumed he's behind a desk.

Police Chief Keith McCaskill declined a request from the Free Press to comment about the specific process followed in this case.

The case was originally set for trial later this year, only to be brought forward and placed on a docket with dozens of others last August for a sudden guilty plea and sentencing.

That helped it escape media coverage and public scrutiny -- until the Free Press learned about it last week.

Aminot, 45, is hardly the only police officer currently on the job with a criminal record.

But Rod Sudbury, a former Winnipeg police officer who is now vice-president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving, said the facts of his case are especially troubling.

"His (blood-alcohol) reading was very, very high," said Sudbury.

Aminot had spent the evening of May 7, 2007, on a date with a female friend. He was two years into his policing career at the time. The couple shared two carafes of wine at a Corydon Avenue restaurant, then went to The Keg on McGillivray Boulevard for more drinks. They left just after midnight on the back of his motorcycle -- with Aminot turning west on McGillivray while driving in the eastbound lane, court was told

He avoided hitting oncoming traffic but crashed into the centre median after travelling a short distance. His girlfriend was thrown off the bike, striking her head on the ground. She suffered a concussion, along with road rash and various cuts and bruises. Aminot was wearing a helmet and wasn't seriously injured.

Police requested a blood sample from Aminot nearly three hours after the crash.

"He was making a number of statements, most of which were rambling, given his impaired state," said special Crown prosecutor Robert Tapper. However, Aminot agreed to submit to the request. "Ya, I gotta do the right thing," he told police.

Aminot's blood-alcohol level was .20. The legal limit to drive is .08. Tapper said it was likely quite a bit higher at the time of the crash.

"He has no excuse for being on that bike having consumed alcohol. He feels absolutely horrible for what he's done. He has learned an unbelievable lesson," defence lawyer Richard Wolson told court.

Aminot has not had a sip of alcohol since that day and has come to grips with the fact he had a serious drinking problem, said Wolson.

He has also found religion, attending weekly church services, and has started doing volunteer work with groups such as the Make-A-Wish Foundation.

"I am truly sorry for what happened. It's totally not like me. It's been a life-changing experience for me, for the better," Aminot told court.

Provincial court Judge Marvin Garfinkel noted there was case precedence for a real jail sentence -- but agreed to go along with the joint recommendation between Tapper and Wolson for the financial penalty and licence suspension.

"A police officer facing an impaired driving offence is going to face consequences far greater than the fine the court is going to impose," Garfinkel said.

Mike Sutherland, president of the Winnipeg Police Association, said he supports the decision by police executive to keep Aminot on the job.

"Police are not perfect. Police are going to make mistakes. It's going to happen from time to time, but we do the best we can. But we are human and with humanity comes those types of frailties," he said. Sutherland said Aminot sought the help he needed and wants to now "do the best he can." He said the inability to drive will not affect Aminot's job.

"There's lots of roles in the police service you can fulfil without having to drive," Sutherland said.

"Believe me, we have a lot of need in a wide variety of areas that don't require any driving."

Former Winnipeg police chief Jack Ewatski raised eyebrows back in 2001 when he suggested any police officer convicted of a crime should be fired.

"If somebody intentionally goes out and breaks the law and they're convicted, then they should lose the privilege of being a police officer," Ewatski said.

However, Ewatski conceded each case would be viewed "on its own merits and all the circumstances surrounding it."

Sudbury said MADD would welcome a blanket policy -- especially concerning drunk driving -- that would see officers lose their job if found guilty. But he concedes that likely could never happen.

"If you're not going to take away everybody's job who is convicted of impaired driving, then you probably shouldn't do it for one category," said Sudbury. He notes some police officers -- such as Derek Harvey-Zenk -- "fall on their swords" and resign following a conviction.

In Harvey-Zenk's case, he killed a woman while driving recklessly.



-- with files from Gabrielle Giroday
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 8
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/3/2010 2:28:13 PM

What I can't quite understand is that she is not allowed to charge the youth that injured her. If she charges the youth, she will not get any assistance from Workers Comp. I was attempting up to find this loophole.... but I can't find it. Is it just the boss (real piece of work that doesn't value Staff well-being) saying that she can't charge the youth? Or is this really the case?
The reality is that workers comp is not supposed to "benefit" you, but compensate you for the injury. If you were to sue the youth, then you don't need compensation from WCB. Except you're never going to get money from the youth, even if you win. As to charging the youth, there's nothing that prevents a person from doing so, but WCB may chose to suspend the compensation as a court could order the youth to compensate. Rather than paying you, then having to sue you for the money back if the youth is ordered to pay, they'll just wait pending the trial.

So, she could charge the youth, but it may not be in her best interests.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 9
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/3/2010 3:32:08 PM

Sudbury said MADD would welcome a blanket policy -- especially concerning drunk driving -- that would see officers lose their job if found guilty. But he concedes that likely could never happen.

"If you're not going to take away everybody's job who is convicted of impaired driving, then you probably shouldn't do it for one category," said Sudbury.


Maybe don't take away their job itself, but how about a blanket policy that if you're convicted of impaired driving, you have your driver's license suspended for a set time ( perhaps a minimum of 1 year (if no one was injured) --- no exceptions).

If you aren't able to work because a valid license is a requirement of your job tuff shit... you chose to take your chances ( & place other people at risk ) & drive while impaired, you can suffer the consequences.
 Belle Requin
Joined: 2/17/2007
Msg: 10
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/3/2010 8:25:04 PM

Maybe don't take away their job itself, but how about a blanket policy that if you're convicted of impaired driving, you have your driver's license suspended for a set time ( perhaps a minimum of 1 year (if no one was injured) --- no exceptions).
Um, if you're convicted of driving impaired, or refusing a breathalyzer, then you DO get an automatic 1yr minimum driving prohibition. You also get an automatic 90 day suspension upon *arrest* for drive impaired.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 11
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/3/2010 10:38:32 PM

Um, if you're convicted of driving impaired, or refusing a breathalyzer, then you DO get an automatic 1yr minimum driving prohibition. You also get an automatic 90 day suspension upon *arrest* for drive impaired.


Gee, makes you wonder how that cop from East St Paul that was driving his truck & killed the woman didn't getcharged/convicted of driving impaired or refusing a bretahalyzer if it's supposed to be automatic...
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 12
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/6/2010 3:43:48 PM

"we must follow proper legal procedures " even if those procedures punish the innocent and let the guilty go.


Because we have a "legal" system, not a "justice" system. Which is why when they can people should administer justice ( when they catch punks setting fires, stealing cars, breaking & entering, commiting vandalism etc etc )... and in some cases don't bother involving the police & having them waste their time arresting the criminals & watching them go free because of the system we currently have.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 13
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 2/24/2010 9:57:57 PM
Speaking of vaccines :


(CNN) -- The medical journal The Lancet on Tuesday retracted a controversial 1998 paper that linked the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine to autism.

The study subsequently had been discredited, and last week, the lead author, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.

The General Medical Council, which oversees doctors in Britain, said that "there was a biased selection of patients in The Lancet paper" and that his "conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible."

The panel found that Wakefield subjected some children in the study to various invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and MRI scans. He also paid children at his son's birthday party to have blood drawn for research purposes, an act that "showed a callous disregard" for the "distress and pain" of the children, the panel said.

After the council's findings last week, The Lancet retracted the study and released this statement.

"It has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record."

Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, said he reviewed the General Medical Council report regarding Wakefield's conduct.

"It's the most appalling catalog and litany of some the most terrible behavior in any research and is therefore very clear that it has to be retracted," he said.

CNN was unable to speak to Wakefield, but in a statement he denied wrongdoing.

"The allegations against me and against my colleagues are both unfounded and unjust and I invite anyone to examine the contents of these proceedings and come to their own conclusion. In fact, the Lancet paper does not claim to confirm a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. Research into that possible connection is still going on."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention praised The Lancet's retraction, saying, "It builds on the overwhelming body of research by the world's leading scientists that concludes there is no link between MMR vaccine and autism. We want to remind parents that vaccines are very safe and effective and they save lives. Parents who have questions about the safety of vaccines should talk to their pediatrician or their child's health care provider."

Since its publication, Wakefield's study has attracted many critics who argued that the work had been so flawed, it should not be regarded as scientific.

Wakefield theorized that the measles vaccine caused gastrointestinal problems and that those GI problems led to autism. In his view, the virus used in the vaccine grew in the intestinal tract, leading the bowel to become porous because of inflammation. Then material seeped from the bowel into the blood, Wakefield's theory said, affecting the nervous system and causing autism.

But subsequent research has been unable to duplicate Wakefield's findings.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield acted unethically in conducting autism research, a British panel found.A September 2008 study replicated key parts of Wakefield's original paper and found no evidence that the vaccine had a connection to either autism or GI disorders. The study, conducted at Columbia University, Massachusetts General Hospital and the CDC, also found no relationship between the timing of the vaccine and children getting GI disorders or autism.

The Wakefield study has been a key piece of evidence cited by many parents who do not vaccinate their children because of autism fears.

"The story became credible because it was published in The Lancet," Alison Singer, president of the Autism Science Foundation, said Tuesday. "It was in The Lancet, and we really rely on these medical journals."

Singer, the mother of a child with autism, added, "That study did a lot of harm. People became afraid of vaccinations. This is the Wakefield legacy: this unscientifically grounded fear of vaccinations that result in children dying from vaccine-preventable diseases."

Retractions are rare in medical journals and usually occur as a result of fraud or plagiarism, said Marcia Angell, a former editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

"It is a major event when there is a retraction like this," she said. "It sounds like there was a misleading design of the study ... patients not randomly chosen. There were ethical violations."

William Schaffner, professor and chairman of the department of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, described the journal's level of action as "unprecedented."

"Since Wakefield's study came out, some 20 other studies have come out, and each one of these studies, done by different researchers, in different populations and in different countries, has denied the associations between vaccines and autism," he said. "Scientifically, this story is over."

Schaffner added, "This series of events is damning and should refocus all of us in the field to find better methods of diagnosis and treatments."

The Lancet came under criticism for the initial publication of the paper 12 years ago.

"The mere publishing of this paper created something that will never fully go way: the false notion that MMR caused autism," said Dr. Paul Offit, author of "Autism's False Prophets: Bad Science, Risky Medicine, and the Search for a Cure," and the chief of division of infectious diseases at the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia.

The retraction did little to change the opinion of Rebecca Estepp, a spokeswoman for Talk About Curing Autism.

Estepp said her son has autism and bowel problems. She said she remains convinced that he had a vaccine reaction and that Wakefield's research helped doctors identify how to help her son.

"I guess the GMC can say whatever they want to say for the rest of their existence, but I know that my son got better because of Dr. Wakefield," she said.

Generation Rescue, an advocacy and support group founded by actress Jenny McCarthy, whose son has autism, expressed support for Wakefield. A co-founder of the group, JB Handley, called him "a courageous honest doctor who told an inconvenient truth." McCarthy is a high-profile proponent of the belief that childhood vaccinations may play a part in the condition.

Generation Rescue criticized the General Medical Council's judgment on Wakefield with this statement: "The sole purpose of the GMC's ruling this week is to try and quell the growing concern of parents that the expanding vaccine schedule and the remarkable rise in autism are correlated."

It also advised parents to do their own research before deciding to give their child the MMR vaccine.

Cases in which U.S. families have sued alleging a vaccine-autism link have had mixed outcomes.

In 2007, a U.S. federal program intended to compensate victims of injuries caused by vaccines concluded that a 9-year-old girl's underlying illness had predisposed her to symptoms of autism and was "significantly aggravated" by the vaccinations.

Two years later, three American families sought compensation from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, but the panel ruled that they had not presented sufficient evidence to prove that the vaccines caused autism in their children.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 14
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 5/31/2010 7:27:33 PM

Families who were compensated by the U.S. vaccine court did not try to claim vaccines directly caused autism, because that statement limits them to proving it.


Which can't be done.


It was the adjudicators of the court that basically concluded that vaccines caused the conditions that caused autism in one child, the female who had mitochondrial disorder, a condition vaccines can cause, and a condition being recognised as a component of autism.


And are any of these adjudicators recognized experts/researchers? Have they produced any studies thathave been published in peer reviewed scientific journals?
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 15
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 5/31/2010 7:32:50 PM

Dr Andrew Wakefield 's work was celebrated until vaccination rates plummeted


Actually, it was celebrated until :

1) Dr. Andrew Wakefield, was found to have acted unethically in conducting the research.

2) there was a biased selection of patients in The Lancet paper

3) his "conduct in this regard was dishonest and irresponsible."

The panel found that Wakefield subjected some children in the study to various invasive medical procedures such as colonoscopies and MRI scans.

4) He also paid children at his son's birthday party to have blood drawn for research purposes, an act that "showed a callous disregard" for the "distress and pain" of the children, the panel said

5) several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al. are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation. In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were 'consecutively referred' and that investigations were 'approved' by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false

6) Subsequent research has been unable to duplicate Wakefield's findings.


7) study, conducted at Columbia University, Massachusetts General Hospital and the CDC, also found no relationship between the timing of the vaccine and children getting GI disorders or autism.


8) Since Wakefield's study came out, some 20 other studies have come out, and each one of these studies, done by different researchers, in different populations and in different countries, has denied the associations between vaccines and autism,"

But don't let the facts ( or the alleged global conspiracy) get in the way of the truthiness of your beliefs.
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 16
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 6/5/2010 11:19:19 PM

And while you do that, keep in mind he was trying to help children with autism while the medical council did nothing, and the Lancet did nothing.


Actually, he was trying to create a state of fear for existing vaccines & while doing his research & then submitting it, he failed to mention that


"he was developing his own commercial rival to the vaccine.

It has emerged that a patent was filed on behalf of Dr Andrew Wakefield for a measles vaccine and other products that would have stood a better chance of success if public confidence in MMR’s safety was undermined.

Wakefield now faces criticism that he should have declared the conflict of interest when he announced a possible link between MMR and childhood autism."
 susan_cd
Joined: 5/16/2007
Msg: 17
We're all equal under the law. Unless..........
Posted: 6/24/2010 11:44:52 AM
The FLQ were pardoned even after commiting numerous terrorist attacks culminating in kidnapping and murder. Now they form government in Quebec.


And don't forget the Bloc MP ( I forget his name) that went to the Canadian Forces bases in Quebec shortly before the last seperation referendum & suggested ( to the Francophone military members on base) they consider becoming members of the Quebec military should the vote be yes for seperation.

That's considered"inciting to mutiny" and under military & federal law in Canada is considered a treasonable offense, but when it was suggested to the PM ( Jean Chretien) he have charges laid against the MP, he declined because it wouldn't be prudent to upset the french so close to the referendum date ( he didn't give a reason for not having the charges laid after the vote had taken place).
Show ALL Forums  > Manitoba  > We're all equal under the law. Unless..........