Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 4

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

In Part 3 of this series, I explained a bit about the concept of ‘summary dismissal’ – using the example of Baglow vs. Free Dominion and John Does as an example.

Thus, we find ourselves on the morning of the 18th of August, 2014, in the Ottawa Elgin Street courthouse,where the hearing between our concerned taxpayer (CT) and The Crown (which too over his prosecution of Kathleen Wynne, the former Transportation Minister of Ontario and the current Premier of Ontario, whose signature on documents seems to suggest she used undue pressure to force Ottawa and Toronto transportation authorities (meaning ‘government-usurped monopolies’) to use an outdated and overpriced ‘Presto’ system in place of competitively awarded contractors to provide an electronic public transit system payment method).  The CT laid private criminal charges against Kathleen Wynne, as a private individual, for wasting over half-a-billion of taxpayers money in an ongoing action, which CT perceives as criminal.  The Crown took over this private prosecution and shelved it – so it would never see the light of day or be acted upon.  Which CT protested against, and it was these protests that The Crown wanted to be summarily dismissed.  As ‘The Crown’ answers directly to the Attorney General, who is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the Premier, Kathleen Wynne, CT challenged this on the grounds of conflict of interest.

The setting is the palatial Elgin St. Court Building in downtown Ottawa, smack dab next to the Ottawa City Hall (with its cheap underground parking – seriously, you’d be hard-pressed to find cheaper parking anywhere else in downtown Ottawa).

The courthouse itself is very, very beautiful.

The core of the building is open – from the first floor all the way to the top, filled with light.  I entered on the 1st floor (the underground basement floor houses the prisoner cells), from the City Hall side, walked past the Tim Hortons and was just about to head to the 2nd floor, where the main,  Elgin Street entrance, is with its information booth to find out which courtroom this hearing will be held in.

As I passed the Tim Hortons, I saw Beth Trudeau and a group of other people walking towards the stairs.  As I caught up to them, Beth introduced me all around:  there was Jack MacLaren.  Another was Jean-Serge Brisson. Another was the concerned taxpayer, CT, in a crisp dark suit, with a light shirt and a finely striped tie.  They, too, were in search of the proper courtroom.

The information desk people, you see, my dear reader, were completely baffled as to why CT might be showing up for court today – they certainly had no record of him or his hearing!

So, the little band of corruption fighters was directed to ask at the criminal courts booth – since this is a criminal case, these people were bound to know where to go!

I must admit, when he walked up to the booth, I stayed rudely close so that I may hear the conversation.  Bad manners on my part, perhaps, but I did want to bring you as much of the story as I could…  Everybody else stood a polite distance apart.

The pretty young woman with a ready smile who worked the booth was very pleasant, but quite definite – CT might as well go home as there is no hearing scheduled for him for that day…

CT – a very pleasant fellow, tall, broad-shouldered with eyes so deep one could loose oneself in them forever – was insistent:  he was given official notice that his case was to be heard today and he would very much like somebody to tell him which courtroom to go to.  Charming and polite – yet determined, with steel in his spine!  The pretty young woman frowned, creasing a wrinkle in her otherwise unblemished forehead, and left.

An older, more knowledgeable-mannered woman came in a few minutes and took her place.  CT smiled and asked where his hearing was to be held.  Shuffling the papers authoritatively, the senior woman, too, insisted that there was nothing on the schedule for the day that even remotely resembled the case he was talking about.  As she was telling him that he must be mistaken in the day his hearing was to be held, the younger woman joined her and shook her head in eager assent.

At this point, CT took out the paper with his official notice of the hearing, to be held today, in this courthouse.

‘Oh, THAT case!’

Of course they knew about THAT case!  It was to be held in courtroom #34!

The younger woman even volunteered that they had been discussing this very case just earlier that morning…

Which, of course, begs the question:  if they had been discussing this case just earlier this morning, how come they had both claimed never to have heard of it before?

Should this be chalked up to simple bureaucratic incompetence, or is the fact that they are employed by the people whose boss answers to Kathleen Wynne, the subject of this lawsuit?

I guess we will never know…

 

More to follow in Part 5 of this narrative.

 

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 3

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

In Part 2 of this series, I explained a bit of how the Canadian/Ontario justice system function:  in order to safeguard from a government that will either fail to bring charges against certain individuals or will not uphold certain laws, each and every citizen has the power to, as a private person, lay criminal charges.  However, this safety-valve (a citizen-empowering protection against a corrupt government) is immediately eviscerated by permitting the government of the day, called ‘The Crown’ and represented by the office of the Attorney General of Ontario, who both employs all the crown prosecutors and is appointed by/serves at the pleasure of the Premier of Ontario, can take over any private prosecution and stay the charges for ever….and the example of Gary McHale in Caledonia was explained.  (This very legal precedent was cited heavily by The Crown representative in this court hearing.)

Which is what brings us to Monday’s court hearing:  The Municipal Taxpayer Advocacy Group founder (CT – conscientious taxpayer) had brought a private prosecution against Kathleen Wynne, due to her signature on the letter which seems (at least, to my untrained eye, as well as CT’s, I suspect) to be extorting the Jim Watson and the City of Ottawa, in order to force him to both accept the inferior and overpriced ‘Presto’ bid for introducing electronic payment on our public transit system as well as making it almost impossible to collect late/non-performance penalties from that particular contractor.  The Crown took over his case – and chose not to proceed with it – meaning the charges would never see the light of day.

So, CT challenged The Crown’s takeover of his case.

And lost….for various, not necessarily ‘farious’ (as opposed to ‘nefarious’) reasons.

CT had appealed that takeover – and The Crown brought about a motion to ‘summarily dismiss’ his appeal:  and this was the subject of Monday’s hearing.

 

In order to win and get his case back, The Crown argued, it was now necessary for CT to prove that there was some abuse of process in The Crown taking over his prosecution of Kathleen Wynne.

CT disagreed, saying he just had to prove that since the accused is the Attorney General’s employer, and by extension the employer of The Crown’s prosecutors, they are in a conflict of interest position in taking over his private criminal prosecution:  and therefore must recuse themselves from the case and turn it over to the Federal Director Public Prosecutions.

CT even cited an Alberta precedent for this – even the appearance of a potential conflict of interest requires The Crown to kick the case to a different level of goernment, like, say, the Feds (who do not, ultimately, answer to Kathleen Wynne, their current employer).

If you read my blog regularly, you may recall that ‘summary dismissal’ is a topic I have covered when reporting on the John Baglow vs Free Dominion and John Does.  In that case (a very, very important case about internet governance, the outcome of which will affect each and every internet-using Canadian and American – and one which is still ongoing), Dr. Baglow sued several posters on an internet political forum, Free Dominion, for having defamed him, as well as suing the administrators of the site for having facilitated the publication of those words (sort of like suing a printer for having printed a newspaper with an article that defamed someone).

In this ‘Baglow’ case, the defendants asked for the case to be summarily dismissed on the grounds that the words published were ‘common insults’ and thus not defamatory.

The hearing lasted a couple of days and the judge agreed that indeed, the words were not capable of being defamatory.  (At east – that is what I heard in the courtroom nd what I understood the final ruling to say – but I am not trained in legal matters, just a member of the ‘unwashed masses’, with a bit of peasant wisdom tossed in.)

Dr. Baglow appealed the summary dismissal – and the court of appeal agreed.  Not because they thought the case had merit – to the contrary, they agreed that they didn’t.  (Or, so I understand.)  But, they said, internet discourse lacks governance so there ought to be a legal precedent set!

So, a full trial is going on now.  First part took place in the spring, the second part will do so this fall.  With expert witness – as the judge chosen has no knowledge of the internet beyond using email (at least, that is what she declared).

Similarly, the MTAG founder (our dear protagonist, CT) had challenged The Crown’s takeover of his case.

He lost, appealed, and The Crown sought to have his appeal ‘summarily dismissed’.

Which is where we found ourselves on that fateful morning of August the 18th, 2014!!!

More to follow in Part 4 of this narrative.

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 2

In Part 1 of this series, I explained a little of the background of the ongoing Presto scandal, which has already cost Ontario taxpayers half-a-billion dollars – and how a concerned taxpayer (hereafter referred to as CT) had searched for who was behind this…and discovered the documents had been signed by none other than Kathleen Wynne, then Ontario Minister of Transportation and now the Premier of Ontario.

So far so good.

Before I proceed with the narrative of this particular case and need to give you, my dear reader, a bit of background about our Ontario legal system.  I would hesitate before I would call it a ‘justice’ system, because I have rarely seen the legal processes in Ontario result in actual ‘justice':  it is so convoluted and painful that the process itself is a deep injury…If it arrives at a ‘just’ ruling….which happens less often than most of us would like to believe.

In Ontario, most of the criminal prosecutions are laid and conducted by ‘The Crown’.  And ‘The Crown (in this sense) falls under the jurisdiction of the Attorney General of Ontario.  All the prosecution lawyers and so on are employed by the Attorney General of Ontario.

And the Attorney General of Ontario is an elected member of the Provincial Legislature, an MPP, who is a member of the Cabinet and is appointed into the role of Attorney General by the Premier of Ontario.

However, it is also possible for a private citizen of Ontario to bring about a criminal prosecution against a person or an organization:  in this case, the prosecutor would not be a lawyer working for the Attorney General (who serves at the pleasure of the Premier), but that private citizen.  This is important, as it will permit citizens to bring to justice even villains that the government of the day chooses not to prosecute and to uphold the laws of the land where the government of the day fails to.

And that is as it should be.

Except that…

The Crown (headed by the Attorney General who serves at the pleasure of the Premier) has the right to, at any point, take over a private criminal prosecution whenever it wants to.

And it usually wants to.

And the private person who originally brought the criminal charges does not get a say in this matter.

In the near past, this has, indeed, happened.

One case of which I am aware of (and which was, by the way, cited as precedent by the Crown lawyer in the Monday court hearing) is that of Gary McHale.

Gary McHale is one of our modern-day heroes.

He has dedicated his life to fighting against racism.

For those who are not aware of it, it is difficult to believe that in Ontario in 2013, it was possible for a person to be prevented from walking down a city (township) street – simply because the residents living on that street did not want a person of  Gary McHale’s race on ‘their street’.

Yet, this is true.

And not only did the police not help Gary McHale, they arrested him.

On what grounds?

They explained that their job was not to ‘uphold the law’ but to ‘maintain public peace’.  Since the racists threatened violence if Gary McHale continued to walk on a public street, the police reasoned that Gary McHale’s action of walking down a public street constituted a threat to public peace and promptly arrested him and his fellow freedom lovers.

That is how things had been in Caledonia, Ontario, for many years.

And not just in Caledonia – when Ezra Levant went to interview some people who were protesting against him, personally, in front of Sun TV offices, the police officers told him in no uncertain terms that his very presence could spark violence from the protesters and since it is easier to remove him than to uphold the law, he must move or they will arrest him…  This ‘heckler’s veto’ is the new rule the police have taken to protecting, instead of protecting those who are non-violent and upholding the laws of our land.

In the past, the situation in Caledonia was even worse – the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) (who were contracted for policing the area) would not intervene when racists would violently assault and batter people whose presence they were unwilling to tolerate due to these people’s race, resulting in serious injuries and property damage/loss.

At one point, Gary McHale had started a private criminal prosecution of the then head of the OPP, Julian Fantino, for ordering this race-based policing.

No sooner had Gary McHale laid the charges than The Crown stepped in and took over his case – and shelved it.

As in, decided not to proceed with it – a so called ‘stay of the charges’.

A nice little loophole, isn’t it?

We have a safety-valve built in to our laws so that citizens would have a legal recourse when the government failed to live up to their responsibility to uphold the laws of the land.

And right away, we eviscerate it – giving the government the power to prevent this recourse from ever actually happening.

Neat little package!

By now, you probably know which way this narrative evolves:  as soon as he brought criminal charges against Kathleen Wynne, The Crown took over the prosecution.

And promptly ‘stayed the charges’!!!

As in, nothing to see here, nothing to hear here – just crickets!

 Aside:  did you know they don’t have crickets in Newfoundland?  I may move there – I can’t stand them buggers!

 

More to follow in Part 3  and Part 4 of this narrative.

 

Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done: except, perhaps, when a taxpayer tries to prosecute Kathleen Wynne – part 1

This will be a multi-part post.  As additional bits are up, I’ll edit to include the links to them at the end.

Yes, I was, yet again hanging out at the Elgin St. Court House in Ottawa on Monday, 18th of August, 2014.

No, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  But, as a citizen of this great country of ours, I am seriously concerned about the erosion of our inalienable rights and freedoms and the ever-increasing government encroachment on these rights and freedoms and its accompanying rise in corruption.

So, when a friend emailed me to let me know that the founder of the Municipal Taxpayer  Advocacy Group, will be in court regarding Kathleen Wynne and the whole Presto mess, I was eager to go and learn for myself exactly what is going on.

As usual, it is difficult to follow what happens in court if you walk in ‘cold’ – without knowing any of the background.  Thus, I would like to present you how I see the case – what the crux of the matter is according to my never-humble-opinion, before I delve into the narration of what occurred in the courtroom.

Currently, Kathleen Wynne is the Premier of Ontario.

I know – I find it difficult to believe as well, but that is what happens when the group-think Cultural Marxist indoctrinated media does not inform the public about the real-life actions of their elected politicians.  Without accurate, impartially presented information, the voting public cannot possibly make an informed choice in the voting booth:  and we end up with people like [insert insult of choice] Kathleen Wynne as the Premier of Ontario.  But, that is a rant for another day.

Prior to being the Premier of Ontario, Kathleen Wynne was the Ontario Minister of Transportation in the Dalton McGuilty Cabinet.

While she was the Minister of Transportation, Kathleen Wynne had presided over the whole Presto mess.

What is the Presto mess?

The way it looks to me (and I could, of course be mistaken:  this is not a statement of fact but solely my imperfect opinion) is that a bunch of the municipalities in Ontario needed to step into the 21st century and introduce a way to pay for public transit electronically.  So, they did what they ought to have:  they opened it up to private companies to propose solutions and bid for the contract.  So far, so good.  Except that some liberal insiders decided that taxpayer funds is their personal piggy bank, so they forced TTC and OC Transpo to buy a highly inferior – but much more expensive (all those pockets don’t just grease themselves, you know) solution.  Since it was shoddy and expensive, nobody wanted it – so, the Liberal government had no choice but to threaten municipalities like Ottawa and Toronto that unless they do go with Presto, the Liberal Government will not pay them the tax money they collect on their behalf from the gas taxes nor will they forward onto them the money they promised them for subways, light rail and other such little matters.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I think it is inappropriate for any level of government to provide a private service, such as transportation (much less to usurp onto themselves a monopoly over it).  That having been said, we do live in a world where government-run public transit is a reality, so we must ensure that the process is as least corrupt as it can possibly be, given this sad state of affairs.

So, when one level of government collects non-voluntarily paid taxes (itself a form of slavery – but that, too, is another rant) on behalf of another, then threatens to withhold these funds unless the recipient levels of government enter into binding contracts forcing them to accept inferior goods at inflated prices – I am not exactly…happy.

And that is exactly what I think happened here.  Not only have OC Transpo and the Toronto Transit been forced into accepting presto, the ‘deal’ forces the municipalities to pay its bill on time – without being able to invoke penalties for late delivery or equipment failure.  Or, so a little bird told me…  This is insult on top of injury and millions more lost, wasted…

But, what is one to do about this?

Well, one concerned taxpayer (let’s call him CT) DID do something about it.

He went on a hunt for the culprit – and found an official letter sent to the Ottawa Mayor, Jim Watson, from the Ontario Government, pretty much making that threat:  accept the Presto system or you’ll not get the money we are legally obligated to transfer to you.

And CT found a signature at the bottom of this letter.

Whose signature was it?

None other than Kathleen Wynne’s, the then Minister of Transportation and the now Premier of Ontario!!!

To me, this seems like the proverbial ‘smoking gun’.

I suspect that CT thought so as well, since he started a private citizen’s prosecution of Kathleen Wynne.

 

More to follow PART 2 , PART 3 and PART 4 of this narrative.

Pat Condell: Hypocrisy over Gaza

Yuri N. Maltsev: Soviet Defector on the Loss of Freedom in America

Tonight, we went out to dinner.

Some cousins from up North (about a 15 hour drive north-west of Ottawa – their town only got a road built to it in the late 70’s/early 80’s) came down to Ottawa to visit the tourist places – and to say hi to us.  So, we went out to dinner and had a very, very fun time.

As these are cousins from my hubby’s side of the family, I was meeting two of them for the first time.  Wonderful people – we ‘clicked’, as you say.

And, as we were extended family members, getting to know one another, we discussed our backgrounds – whom from the family we knew, how they are related to us and them, and also about the bits of our families that are different from each other.  My Northern cousins talked about their Ojibway, Polish, Finnish and Irish roots while I talked a bit about my life on the far side of the iron curtain.

The discussion turned to our aunt (their grandmother – a most wonderful 87-year-old lady who, just a couple of weeks ago, joyfully played ‘Cards Against Humanity’ with us when we went up to the ‘camp’ up North) and her health situation.  You see, she has cancer.  And, she is in the Ontario Socialized Medicine waiting list to get surgery….  Except that, if she were to wait for her turn, she would most likely die of cancer before her turn came up.

Remember, this is not Toronto or the Greater Toronto Area (GTA):  this is Northern Ontario!

Voters in the GTA decide the Ontario Government – just the other day, a reader of mine from the GTA (I believe) commented that (s)he got a non-emergency MRI in JUST (sic) 6 weeks – a luxury unheard of outside the vote-rich GTA!!!  The rest of us peasants have much, much longer wait times:  for example, I managed t get an X-ray appointment in just two weeks!

Explanation:  Ontario family physicians have been forced into clinics, as sole practitioners have been forced out of business – and various clinics will only accept results from ‘approved’ imaging firms – ensuring that you cant go to a place with a shorter waiting list, even if you were willing to pay for the service out of pocket by going, say, to the US or elsewhere.  And the shortage of family physicians is so acute that you take what you can and hope for the best…

But, I digress.  Back to my auntie and her cancer.

She is on a long, very long waiting list for her cancer surgery/treatment in Ontario.  Too long for any reasonable chance of survival… So, she will go down to the US to have her surgery done.  It will cost less than her annual contribution to the Ontario socialized medicine Ponzi scheme and is easily affordable, even without the rest of the family needing to pitch in (which we would have gladly done, had she needed it).  And, she gets in in about 10 days.  Of course, the big complication is the travel…

This brought out dinner conversation tonight to medicare and I was asked about how medicare was in the Socialist Worker’s Paradise where I grew up…

I explained that whenever we would go to see a doctor, we would bring a package of Western coffee, or chocolates, or a bottle of expensive booze, or something else that would please the doctor – so that they would actually examine and treat us, not just give us a slip of paper for time off and a prescription for an antibiotic (regardless of what the problem was).  After all, if the system does not incentivize people to perform, other mechanism, like this underground economy, would develop.

It was funny, really.  My mom was a gym teacher – renowned for her basketball coaching skills.  She ran a number of boys and girls basketball teams and organized tournaments to which scouts for the ‘army (read professional teams) would come. So, some parents of her students would give her ‘presents’ (coffee, chocolate, booze…) to make sure their kids would get a lot of play time when the scouts would be there.  She would save these and we would, in turn, use them when we went to see a doctor or a dentist and such…

We joked that in such a pound of coffee or box of chocolates could easily pass from the parent to my mom, from her to the MD, from the MD to her dentist, and from the dentist to his plumber – who was the original parent….

In this light, I think you might enjoy the following talk:

 

 

VA Recap: U.S. Vet on Cause, Solution, and Scale of Scandal

 

Palestiinan Envoy to UNHRC: Israelis Warn Civilians Before Attacks, We Don’t

This is the big difference between the Palestinian terrorist of Hamas and the law-abiding Israeli Military:  The Israeli military warns civilians to get out of the region they are about to attack so that non-military people, civilians, will not be caught in the crossfire and injured or even killed…while the Palestinian terrorists of Hamas are telling the innocent Palestinian civilians to stay, so that they will be hurt and killed and they, the terrorists, can use the civilians’ suffering in a propaganda war!

Yes, I have been saying this for years – but now, even the Palestinian Envoy to the UNHRC is daring to speak this truth:

If you still don’t believe that the ancient hatred of anti-Semitism is the same beast in a new cloak, styling itself  as ‘anti-Zionism’ and ‘reasonable’ criticism of the country of Israel, just listen to the venom of the ‘anti-Zionists’ and their unbridled Jew-hatred:

 

 

 

 

Militarized Cops

 

Give us your land for one dollar – or you go to jail!!!

Please, indulge me for a while…I promise I’ll get to the point, eventually.

 

  • If you sent your child to school with a yummy lunch and someone used the threat of force to make your kid  ‘sell’ them their whole (and much more valuable) lunch for a dollar – would that be acceptable?  How would you react?

 

  • If you (rather than your child) bough a lunch and someone used the threat of force to make you ‘sell’ them your lunch for a dollar – would that be acceptable?  How would you react?

 

  • If you bought a pair of shoes and someone used the treat of force to make you ‘sell’ them these new shoes for a dollar – would that be acceptable?

 

  • How about a car – would it be acceptable for someone to use the threat of force to make you ‘turn over’ a new car to them for one dollar?

 

  • What about a house?  Would it be acceptable for someone to use the threat of force to make you ‘turn over’ your house to them for one dollar?

 

  • And if you purchased some land and planned to build a home on it – would it be acceptable for someone to use the threat of force to ‘turn over’ that land to them for one dollar?

 

  • And what if you purchased some land and planned to build a more than one home on it – would it be any different?  Would it be acceptable for anyone to force you (using threats of violence and imprisonment) to turn the land over to them for one dollar?

 

Yet, that is exactly what is happening in Ottawa!!!

What is worse, even though I took some time before writing this up to wait for a single news outlet to report this for the travesty that it is, not one of them has.

Each and every one of the mainstream media outlets has interviewed only the people who are doing the forcing – and what is worse, they feel it is righteous of them to do this.  Every single one of the reports on this ‘story’ have been deeply empathetic to the bullies and not the victim in this case.

An eternity ago, when I was in high school, we studies a short story called ‘The Devil and Daniel Webster’.  If you are unfamiliar with it, here is the story in a nutshell:  a farmer has bad luck and eventually agrees to sell his soul to the Devil in exchange of 7 years of good luck.  The Devil fulfills his end of the contract, even letting the farmer have an extension.  Still unwilling to pay the price he had agreed to in the contract, the farmer hires the famous orator Daniel Webster to argue for him in front of a jury.  Instead of judging the contract on the basis of facts, Webster manipulates the jury’s emotions to judge on the basis of ‘people=good, Devil=evil’…and gets the farmer off.

When we discussed the story afterwards in the classroom, every single student – excepting me, of course – was happy with the way the story ended, hailing is as a ‘victory of good over evil’.  I was not sure what I was more horrified at:  that the story permitted the victory of ‘wrong over right’ or that so many of my classmates had been manipulated of their perception of ‘Devil=evil and therefore must be defeated by any means necessary’ and could not perceive that in this situation. the ‘evil’ Devil was actually in the right.

By the way – my hubby had attended a different high school, but he, too studied this short story and he also was the only one in his class to argue ‘right vs wrong’ rather than ‘good vs evil’….

Why do I bring ‘The Devil and Daniel Webster’ up in this context?

Because in today’s world, it is difficult to imagine someone more ‘devil-like’ than a land developer…except, perhaps, someone in the ethical oil/gas industry.

In the Ottawa permutation of the story, a land developer had purchased land with the aim of building homes on it and, well, selling them.  But, the City of Ottawa had decided that on the property this land developer had legally purchased, there ‘might’ have been some old and/or significant trees….and if the city’s agents deemed that this was so, the developer would be forced to ‘turn the land over to the city for one dollar’.

In other words, the City of Ottawa was both the prosecutor and the judge – and, should they issue the arrest warrant, the executioner.

It was the City of Ottawa who raise the issue and it was the City of Ottawa who would judge if they have the ‘right’ to demand the land be ‘turned over’ to them for one dollar…

Am I the only one who thinks this is not just plain wrong, but truly evil?

Yet, every news source I heard or read is empathetic to the city, not the ‘evil’ land developer….

How does this happen?!?!?

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 121 other followers