Category: Criminal

Posted on

Another Ford Campaigner Now A Lobbyist, This Time For AstraZeneca; Rubicon Strategy

Back we go with the pharmaceutical lobbying in Ontario. This time, it’s AstraZeneca that is inappropriately using its political influence in order to peddle their drugs. Ever wonder why Ford insists on maintaining martial law until everyone is vaccinated? Look at who he’s been talking to.

The Ontario Lobbying Registry is open to the public. Anyone can search it, and for any reason. It’s particularly useful in determining who politicians have been talking to, on whose behalf, and on what subject matter. It really can be a gold mine if used properly.

As a war room operative she helped elect Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario. As a Chief of Staff in Premier Ford’s government, Sarah built an impressive network of peers, and successfully managed communications on a number of contentious files. If you need something at Queen’s Park, Sarah knows who to talk to and how to get it done.

Meet Sarah Letersky. She helped get Doug Ford elected into office in 2018, and became his Chief of Staff. Now, she works with Rubicon Strategy. One of her clients is AstraZeneca, who wants to sell their product here.

We have seen this pattern before with Pfizer and Emergent BioSolutions. It’s also been happening in British Columbia and Nova Scotia.

The other lobbyist, Patrick Harris, spent time working for Federal politicians, which is interesting. Given the crossover between Ontario and Ottawa, he likely has plenty of connections. And the rabbit hole goes deeper.

Jan O’Driscoll worked for Harper, then was a Chief of Staff for Ford, and contributed to his 2018 election. Kory Teneycke was Communications Director for Harper, and helped Ford get elected. Another honourable mention at Rubicon Strategy is Christine Simundson. She also claims credit for helping to make Ford Ontario Premier in June 2018. She claims to have gotten 17 Candidates elected to Parliament.

With years of experience leading tactical communications and tough policy files, Jan is a straight shooter that gets the job done. He’s held senior leadership roles in the private sector as well as with several federal cabinet ministers in Harper’s government. Most recently, Jan served as Chief of Staff in several key ministries in Premier Ford’s government where he drove transformational initiatives to get wins for the people of Ontario.

With two decades in public affairs, Kory has served as the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister of Canada, managed the cable news channel “Sun News”, and served as Executive Director of the Renewable Fuels Association. Kory was the manager of the 2018 campaign that saw Doug Ford become Premier of Ontario, and is now on a leave of absence to manage the 2022 campaign for the Ontario PC Party.

Christine’s experience in the legal profession coupled with her experience in marketing and promotions gives her an edge when it comes to grassroots activism. Before joining Rubicon, Christine was active in the Ontario PC Party War Room during the 2018 Provincial election. Christine’s guidance elected 17 of the PC MPPs in Peel Region, Halton, Toronto and Northern Ontario. Christine was the PC Party Organizer for Peel Region and played a senior role in organizing the PC Leadership race of 2018.

Fadi has invested a decade in politics. He’s worked across all three levels of government. He served as senior advisor to the Interim Leader of the Ontario Liberal Party and has significant experience in public and stakeholder relations. He’s won campaigns and delivered results for Premiers, and top-level public policy leaders. Fadi doesn’t stop till the job is done and done well.

Of course, if Ford hadn’t been elected in 2018, Fadi El Masry may have been sent instead. He’s got plenty of ties to the Ontario Liberal Party, and would’ve used that.

Also, being a mouthpiece for political candidates doesn’t stop with Ontario. Two other Rubicon employees, Emrys Graefe and Cole Hogan, also claim to have been involved in making Jason Kenney the Premier of Alberta.

Spearheading digital for Doug Ford’s leadership campaign, Emrys managed the digital marketing that won the Ontario PCs a majority government in 2018 and then did the same for the UCP in Alberta, electing Jason Kenney as Premier. Having worked in politics for a decade, Emrys’ experience shows when it comes to leveraging public opinion to achieve specific outcomes.

Having played a leading role in the merging of Alberta’s Wildrose and Progressive Conservative parties, Cole is a highly talented communications professional. Cole is responsible for some of the most innovative advertisements seen in Canadian politics and played a key role in electing Doug Ford as Premier of Ontario and Jason Kenney as Premier of Alberta.

It has to be asked: does being a “handler” for a political candidate stop once that person is elected? Or are there favours that need to be paid back. In all honesty, it appears that all politicians are just actors being spoon fed a script by interested parties.

If you didn’t have enough reason to NOT trust the Canadian news, consider that Don Newman (who claimed to be a journalist), is the Executive Vice President of Rubicon. Did he ever call out this sort of thing when he gave his nightly broadcast?

In fairness, lobbying or “public relations” is just part of what the group does. They are also involved in the defense industry. However, that will be for another time.

UPDATE TO ARTICLE

Shortly after publication, extra data was added to the Registry.

(1) http://lobbyist.oico.on.ca/Pages/Public/PublicSearch/
(2) https://rubiconstrategy.com/
(3) https://www.linkedin.com/in/sarah-letersky/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/patrick-harris-69348726/

Posted on

Meet Éric Lamoureux Of Public Affairs Advisors, Puppet-Master Of Francois Legault On SNC Lavalin

In February 2019, Quebec Premier Francois Legault called on the Federal Government to make a deal with SNC Lavalin in the ongoing criminal case. Presumably, that meant offering Lavalin a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, or DPA. This would allow them to continue bidding on Federal contracts immediately, and bypass the mandatory 10 year ban. Previously, Quebec had been pressuring Ottawa to change the law to allow for such legislation to be enacted.

The topic of corruption at SNC Lavalin has been addressed in this mini series. Take a read through for more background information.

Now, a question has to be asked: where did Legault get this idea? Who has been pulling his strings?

Éric Lamoureux
Managing Director, Montréal

Éric Lamoureux has been helping Canadian corporate and political leaders effectively manage complex public policy and reputational issues for more than a decade. In that time, he has been a political advisor to leading federal and municipal politicians, national associations, cultural groups, and both national and global corporations.

Based in Montréal, Éric draws on deep expertise in politics and public administration to help clients protect and promote their interests in Canada and Québec. As a specialist in issues management, regulatory affairs, stakeholder relations and media relations, Éric has achieved many notable successes on behalf of his clients, including: helping a global financial services company safeguard its market position in the face of regulatory change; mobilizing the support of a provincial government to pressure for changes to the federal Criminal Code on a client’s behalf; and encourage a major Canadian municipal government to reverse a decision to construct a public building beside a client facility.

As Managing Director based in Montréal, Éric leads all of the firm’s activities and operations in Québec, and works with clients on issues across Canada.

Meet Éric Lamoureux Of Public Affairs Advisors, PPA, a lobbying firm that operates out of Quebec and Ottawa. While he doesn’t name SNC Lavalin, perhaps to make it less obvious, who else could it be?

The implication is that Lamoureux and PPA lobbied the Quebec Government to pressure the Federal Government to change the law. This would have allowed Lavalin to escape the worst of potential criminal sanctions. If this isn’t illegal, at a minimum it’s incredibly sleazy.

It takes a special kind of stupid to announce corruption in your professional profile. Then again, in this atmosphere, it may just be a form of advertising.

According to his LinkedIn page, Lamoureux worked for the Liberals from 2003 to 2006. Keep in mind, this is the period that Jean Chretien was forced to resign (because of corruption allegations). Later, Paul Martin was voted out of office (because of corruption allegations). Afterwards, Lamoureux became the Chief of Staff for the Ottawa Mayor.

So why not just lobby Ottawa directly? Well, that was done as well, primarily by Bruce Hartley (a Chretien operative), and William Pristanski (a Mulroney operative). Check earlier pieces in the series. Lamoureux and PPA were just another level of pressure, trying to get Quebec to pile on with the Federal Liberals.

Now, it’s possible that Lamoureux is just puffing his chest, and he isn’t the mastermind. But then, why brag about something like this? It’s strange that his name doesn’t appear anywhere in the mainstream press about this “accomplishment”.

Looking through the index of advisors, it’s clear that these are political hacks (of different Parties), who come together to peddle influence for whoever happens to pay their bills.

Felix Wong is an Advisor in PAA’s Ottawa office with nearly a decade of political experience and a strong background in communications, public policy, issues management and stakeholder engagement.
.
Felix understands the government decision-making process, having worked in various roles on Parliament Hill, including as an advisor to several Cabinet Ministers. In addition, he served as Manager of National Outreach for the Conservative Party of Canada and has been a part of two national election campaign teams for the Conservatives. In these roles, he helped create a stakeholder outreach strategy to communicate policies to Canada’s diverse cultural communities.

Maryanne Sheehy is an Advisor in Ottawa providing strategic analysis, public policy, media, and stakeholder relations advice to clients.
.
Maryanne has an in-depth knowledge of government having worked in the Prime Minister’s Office in Ottawa for over five years where she served in a variety of roles including as an Advisor for stakeholder relations and outreach. She brings expertise in developing and implementing communications, stakeholder, and issues management strategies for key business and political decision makers. During her time on Parliament Hill, Maryanne also worked as an Advisor to the Prime Minister’s Chief of Staff and was part of two national campaign teams for the Conservative Party of Canada.

Not to worry, this isn’t just a problem of Liberal cronyism. At least at few advisors at PPA has ties to the higher ups on the Conservative Party of Canada.

Latitia Scarr is a Senior Advisor & Client Director in Ottawa, where she brings extensive experience in policy, government relations and communications. Most recently, she worked for the Canadian Produce Marketing Association, managing advocacy and regulatory issues affecting trade.
.
Previous roles have included Caucus Services in the Liberal Research Bureau/Office of the Leader of the Opposition and Policy Manager at the Liberal Party of Canada National Office. These and other positions have given her wide-ranging knowledge on issues such as trade, agriculture and food, public safety, health, customs, innovation, Indigenous affairs, natural resources, among others, as well as of the public policy arena.

Bit of a side note: she also worked for the coalition for gun control. Now she works with so-called conservatives. How peculiar.

Dan Pfeffer is a Senior Advisor & Client Director in Ottawa, working with the firm’s clients at the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Based in Ottawa, he holds a Ph.D. in political science and has researched and published on various aspects of public policy and government decision making. He also has taught in faculties of various universities including McGill and l’Université du Québec à Montréal.
.
Dan brings extensive knowledge of group mobilization and stakeholder engagement to his work on behalf of clients in the health, technology, financial services and telecommunications sectors. In addition to his academic work, he served as a key member of the campaign team that elected Anthony Housefather in the hotly contested federal riding of Mount Royal in 2015.

Pfeffer taught at McGill University. That is a strange coincidence (if it is one) that current Attorney General David Lametti is a Professor there, currently on leave. Lametti was brought in as the “fixer” after Jody Wilson-Raybould refused to grant SNC Lavalin their DPA.

Noah Niznick is a Senior Advisor & Client Director in Ottawa, where he works closely with clients in the financial services, natural resource and health care sectors. He joined the firm after serving for several years as the senior political advisor to the national caucus chair of Canada’s Official Opposition.
.
In that role, Noah established deep policy knowledge and strong relationships with elected officials, government advisors, as well as the many stakeholders engaged in public policy at the federal level. He has developed significant policy initiatives on a range of economic, consumer, and technology issues, working with a range of diverse interests. He also manages traditional and social media strategies, as well as issue-focused communications campaigns to reach targeted audiences.

Michael von Herff founded the firm in 2010 and works with clients to advance their public policy and regulatory agendas in Canada, the United States and Europe.
.
Over the past 25 years, Michael has helped clients protect and promote their interests with governments, media and stakeholders on the issues that matter most to their business. He has delivered success on a range of challenging assignments including: convincing a U.N. body to pass new regulations to accommodate the concerns of one of the world’s most important commodity groups; securing $100 million in new government support for a research fund in a previously ignored disease area; and, ensuring a major Canadian services company did not become a victim of policy change during a major overhaul of financial services regulations.

Other than political cronyism, what else are these people up to these days? Who’s writing the cheques now?

Seems that Public Affairs Advisors is now lobbying on behalf of Moderna. After all, Canadians need those interim authorized (not approved), mRNA vaccines to be distributed immediately. Seems that the PPA really will represent anybody. We’ll have to see what else comes their way.

(1) https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/quebec-premier-wants-ottawa-to-settle-with-snc-lavalin-so-firm-avoids-trial
(2) https://canucklaw.ca/corruption-reviews-snc-lavalin/
(3) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/eric-lamoureux/
(4) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ericlamoureux/
(5) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/our-advisors/
(6) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/felix-wong/
(7) https://www.linkedin.com/in/wongfelix88/
(8) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/maryanne-sheehy/
(9) https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryanne-sheehy/
(10) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/latitia-scarr/
(11) https://www.linkedin.com/in/latitia-scarr-59a31435/
(12) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/dan-pfeffer/
(13) https://www.linkedin.com/in/dan-pfeffer-95a48319/
(14) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/noah-niznick/
(15) https://www.linkedin.com/in/noahniznick/
(16) http://publicaffairsadvisors.com/michael-von-herff/
(17) https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-von-herff-2aab2411/
(18) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/advSrch?V_SEARCH.command=navigate&time=1620295865125
(19) https://lobbycanada.gc.ca/app/secure/ocl/lrs/do/vwRg?cno=368615&regId=911693
(20) https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-quebec-caq-1.5056385

Posted on

TSCE #9(I): “Mr. Girl”, Pedo Defending Cuties Film Gets YouTube Channel Restored

Free speech and open discourse are generally extremely beneficial to society. However, the selective censoring of that on platforms like YouTube raise some serious questions. Here, YouTube and Twitter don’t seem to have an issue with disturbing content.

1. “Mr. Girl”, Max Karson, Defends Cuties

The first video is Max Karson (a.k.a. “Mr. Girl”) appearing on the Kill Stream with Ethan Ralph. Ralph frequently hosts discussion on topics like pornography, so this isn’t just a one-off. Karson then made his “Cuties” video the next day. While scrubbed from YouTube, it’s still on his site. Several people made great reviews of it, including Adonis Paul and Brittany Venti.

2. Most Likely Sincere, Not Trolling

The suggestion had been made several times that Karson was trolling, that this whole thing was an act either for attention, or to generate views. While that is possible, the tone and overall content comes across as someone who is serious about this content. While satire and comedy (even raunchy stuff) should be protected as free speech, this doesn’t look like that at all.

3. Karson’s YouTube Channel Gets Restored

Even though the Cuties video was taken from the YouTube channel, it is still available — in full — on the website, https://maxkarson.com/. There’s also a disgusting “apology” video posted. Additionally, Karson is still able to receive donations via Square Space and Patreon.

There wouldn’t be as much of an issue if there were uniform standards, either for or against free speech absolutism. However, there seem to be double standards, depending on the subject.

Again, if this was some strange version of satire or parody, what exactly is the punch line? How does this result in humour or comedy?

YouTube has no problems with removing content that contradicts the Covid-19 narrative. Guess we have to draw the line somewhere. Canuck Law is just one of many accounts who have been threatened with the loss of their channel over that.

Worth pointing out: Twitter is currently being sued for (allegedly) not removing illegal material involving minors on its website. That is still ongoing in Court.

4. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

Posted on

Bill C-6, Banning Conversion Therapy As Act Of “Tolerance”

The latest form of tolerance: prohibiting legitimate discussion, advertising, or efforts to help people deal with a serious illness. It seems to be vaguely worded on purpose. Should minors really be making decisions about life altering changes to their bodies?

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Important Links

Bill C-6 Introduced Into House Of Commons
December 1, 2020 Hearing Testimony
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes/43/2/14
Canada Criminal Code: Corrupting Morals
https://openparliament.ca/debates/2021/3/22/garnett-genuis-6/

3. Vote On October 28, 2020

  • Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher)
  • Mr. Tom Kmiec(Calgary Shepard)
  • Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot)
  • Mr. Jeremy Patzer (Cypress Hills—Grasslands)
  • Mr. Derek Sloan (Hastings—Lennox and Addington)
  • Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock)
  • Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River)

Bill C-6 passed Second Reading in October 2020. Only 7 MPs, all Conservatives, voted against this Bill. The final tally was 305-7, and it wasn’t even close. Just think: 15 years ago, Conservatives were willing to vote to conserve marriage. Now, they cuck like Liberals.

4. Conversion Therapy Lumped In W/Child Porn

Warrant of seizure
.
164 (1) A judge may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of copies of a recording, a publication, a representation or any written material, if the judge is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
(a) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is a voyeuristic recording;
(b) the recording, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an intimate image;
(c) the publication, copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is obscene, within the meaning of subsection 163(8);
(d) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is child pornography as defined in section 163.1;
(e) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement of sexual services; or
(f) the representation, written material or recording, copies of which are kept in premises within the jurisdiction of the court, is an advertisement for conversion therapy.

Section 164:
Owner and maker may appear
(3) The owner and the maker of the matter seized under subsection (1), and alleged to be obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, may appear and be represented in the proceedings to oppose the making of an order for the forfeiture of the matter.
.
Order of forfeiture
(4) If the court is satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it may make an order declaring the matter forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which the proceedings take place, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.
.
Disposal of matter
(5) If the court is not satisfied that the publication, representation, written material or recording referred to in subsection (1) is obscene, child pornography, a voyeuristic recording, an intimate image, an advertisement of sexual services or an advertisement for conversion therapy, it shall order that the matter be restored to the person from whom it was seized without delay after the time for final appeal has expired.

Some new sections will also be added entirely. Offering, coercing, forcing, and even advertising conversion therapy will now go against the criminal code.

Forced conversion therapy
320.‍102 Everyone who knowingly causes a person to undergo conversion therapy without the person’s consent is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Causing child to undergo conversion therapy
320.‍103 (1) Everyone who knowingly causes a person who is under the age of 18 years to undergo conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Mistake of age
(2) It is not a defence to a charge under subsection (1) that the accused believed that the person was 18 years of age or older, unless the accused took reasonable steps to ascertain the person’s age.
.
Advertising conversion therapy
320.‍104 Everyone who knowingly promotes or advertises an offer to provide conversion therapy is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
.
Material benefit from conversion therapy
320.‍105 Everyone who receives a financial or other material benefit, knowing that it is obtained or derived directly or indirectly from the provision of conversion therapy, is
(a) guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or
(b) guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

There is also a provision to make it a crime to go abroad to engage in conversion therapy.

Advertising material or services related to conversion therapy will now be treated much along the lines of child pornography or voyeuristic material. Advertising, promoting, or receiving material is also prohibited.

Interestingly, selling pornography (or other degenerate material) is fine if everyone is over 18 years old. In other words, financially benefiting from porn is okay. However, that doesn’t seem to apply at all to conversion therapy.

4. Clips From Parliamentary Hearings

A huge point to be made: sexual orientation and gender identity are not the same thing, and cannot be used interchangeably. Also, the definition and wording is pretty bad. Perhaps these “exploratory” conversations can only be had with people who already agree. The potential for long term harm, including suicides, seems downplayed.

5. Conservatives Capitulate Once Again

So much for standing on principle. The only concern seems to be with the wording of the bill, not the overall intent. Guess we’ll have to see what ultimately happens, but it doesn’t look promising.

Posted on

Bill C-75 Revisited, The NGOs Pushing Degeneracy, Child Abuse

Bill C-75 was an omnibus piece of legislation. Given its size, it was impossible to properly debate back in 2017/2018. But it’s worth reviewing, even after the fact. It watered down penalties for terrorism offences, and once for reducing penalties for crimes against children. This piece looks more at some of the groups trying to influence the legislation.

1. EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust

From around 16:23 in this September 25, 2018 transcript from the Parliamentary Hearings on law and justice. A few points worth noting.

First: while this is cloaked as a social justice issue, there seems to be no concern for the consequences of the changes sought here. Second: what is wrong with the parents of young children wanting their (intersex) children from having normal lives as a recognized gender? Third: there is the claim that gays are discriminated against because the age of consent is higher than with straight couples. Strange how they always want it lowered, and never propose RAISING it overall.

2. Centre For Gender And Sexual Diversity

Following the introduction of C-39, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unconstitutional provisions) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, the CCGSD was excited that the government was looking serious at equalizing age of consent legislation. We applaud the government on including this as is critical step forward. The CCGSD has been asking for this critical change since 2008. This is critical to the LGBTQI2+ communities as the criminalization of consensual sexual acts between Canadians should be seen as equal under the law regardless of your sexual orientation or gender identity

What they refer to as “equalizing the age” of consent was the provision to reduce the age of consent for anal sex from 18 to 16. Normal sex has a minimum age of consent of 16, years old, and even that was only recent. It used to be 14. The Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity has deemed it a “priority” to lower the age of consent — since 2008 — instead of asking for a higher universal standard.

They talk about equality for consensual acts between Canadians, but they don’t mentions consensual acts between ADULT Canadians. That detail seems left out.

1-Bill C-75 fails to address sex work criminalization
The criminalization of sex work has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme court and continues to put Canadian sex workers in danger. Local, provincial and federal police services continue to use existing legislation to harass and criminalize folks who should be allowed to do their job with the support and protection of the state.
We strongly recommend that a clear decriminalization of sex work be included in C-75.

There doesn’t seem to be any moral issues with sex work itself, or the dangers or moral issues it causes. Instead, CCGSD takes issue with there being laws against it.

2-Bill C-75 fails to protect intersex children from non-consensual surgery
In June 2017, the CCGSD came out with our Pink Agenda making it clear that we stand in solidarity with Intersex communities and their right to decide what is best for their bodies, and yet today Section 268(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada allows non-consensual surgery by medical practitioners to alter the bodies of infants and children whom they perceive to be ambiguous (i.e. intersex).
We strongly recommend that the repeal of Section 268(3) be included in C-75.

We can’t have parents attempting to correct birth defects the best way they know how, in order to help their children go about their lives. What is wrong with them simply being normal boys or girls?

3-Bill C-75 fails to repeal the ‘bawdy house’ laws or obscenity laws that disproportionately affect queer and trans people
The ‘bawdy house’ laws have continue to criticized by many LGBTQI2+ organizations, including most recently the coalition of LGBTQ2I+ and allied organizations during the debate on C-66, An Act to establish a procedure for expunging certain historically unjust convictions and to make related amendments to other Acts (http://ccgsd-ccdgs.org/c66). These laws continue to be used to criminalize consensual LGBTQI2+ behaviours, and need to be full repealed.
We strongly recommend that the repeal of the ‘bawdy house’ laws be included in C-75

An bizarre argument. While claiming that gays aren’t perverts, the CCGSD also claims that laws against degeneracy disproportionately impact them. Doesn’t that undermine the original assertion?

3. Vancouver Rape Relief — Domestic Violence

The change to reverse onus bail in cases of male violence against women is an encouraging step to help reduce the number of men who immediately re-offend and attack their female intimate partners. It is a positive step because the onus is on the offender to prove why they should be let out on bail if they have a history of domestic violence. This sends a message that violence against women is a serious crime. It is, however, unfortunate that this reverse onus will not apply to those men without a criminal record for domestic violence, which will include convicted persons who received an absolute or a conditional discharge. What we see from our work is getting a conviction is rare; when it does happen often its a man of colour. As a result, we can see the possibility that something like this will disproportionately affect racialized men, while the majority of men who go without being charged and convicted remain unaccountable and undeterred.

Eliminating the mandatory use of preliminary inquiries as it relates to women who have been sexually assaulted is a positive step. We know from our experience accompanying women to court that preliminary inquiries are used by the defence as an attempt to discredit their testimony by pointing out minute discrepancies from their police statements, their preliminary inquiry evidence and their trial testimonies.

Vancouver Rape Relief brings a few interesting arguments into the discussion. First, they are upset that the “reverse onus” provisions of bail won’t apply to men without past convictions for domestic violence. Second, they support eliminating mandatory use of preliminary inquiries, which are an important step of discovery prior to trial. It doesn’t appear that they actually support the idea of due process.

4. Individuals Opposing Degeneracy Laws

Regarding the last video, the crime itself is failing to disclose HIV status with sexual partners. However, it’s frequently misnamed as “criminalizing people with HIV”. Knowing that the other person has this disease is pretty important, regardless of how deadly it might be.

It’s worth pondering: how many of those people who are okay with not disclosing HIV status to sexual partners would be okay with forcing masks and vaccines on people?

5. Does Anyone Care About These Reductions?

  • Section 58: Fraudulent use of citizenship
  • Section 159: Age of consent for anal sex
  • Section 172(1): Corrupting children
  • Section 173(1): Indecent acts
  • Section 180(1): Common nuisance
  • Section 182: Indecent interference or indignity to body
  • Section 210: Keeping common bawdy house
  • Section 211: Transporting to bawdy house
  • Section 242: Not getting help for childbirth
  • Section 243: Concealing the death of a child
  • Section 279.02(1): Material benefit – trafficking
  • Section 279.03(1): Withholding/destroying docs — trafficking
  • Section 279(2): Forcible confinement
  • Section 280(1): Abduction of child under age 16
  • Section 281: Abduction of child under age 14
  • Section 291(1): Bigamy
  • Section 293: Polygamy
  • Section 293.1: Forced marriage
  • Section 293.2: Child marriage
  • Section 295: Solemnizing marriage contrary to law
  • Section 435: Arson, for fraudulent purposes
  • Section 467.11(1): Participating in organized crime

These are not minor or unimportant crimes. In fairness, there are a few submissions that speak out about the hybridization of these offences (making them eligible to be tried summarily). Who came up with these though? Why are such crimes being shrugged off. Sure, the terrorism offence penalties caused backlash, but not these. It’s almost as if they wanted to divert attention.

As for watering down terrorism offences, where did that idea come from? CIJA, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs spoke against some of these provisions. But it’s unclear who was the brains behind the proposal

Now, it should be noted that changes to the MAXIMUM sentence of certain crimes would make law students and paralegals ineligible to work on such cases. While not a defense of criminals, everyone should have access to some representation.

Who was Bill C-75 really designed for? It comes across as if a group wanted to destabilize society, and wrote collaboratively on it.

(1) Parliamentary Study On Bill C-75 (Fall 2018)
(2) Bill C-75 Canadian Centre For Gender Sexual Diversity
(3) Bill C-75 Canadian Civil Liberties Association
(4) Bill C-75 EGALE Canada Human Rights Trust
(5) Bill C-75 Vancouver Rape Relief
(6) Bill C-75 Law Society Of Ontario
(7) Bill C-75 Tom Hooper Et AlBill C-75 UNICEF Canada
(8) Bill C-75 Families For Justice Alberta

Posted on

AZ Rep. Hannley Opposes Mandatory Life For Repeat Child Predators, Since Most Inmates Are Non-White

This was previously covered in several American outlets. An Arizona State Representative, Pamela Powers Hannley, opposes mandatory life sentences for child sex offences. She claims it would disproportionately lock up people of colour. She focuses on INCARCERATION RATE as a metric, while ignoring the CRIME RATE, the only metric that matters.

She also leaves out that the life sentences would apply to REPEAT offenders. A huge omission.

1. Trafficking, Smuggling, Child Exploitation

Serious issues like smuggling or trafficking are routinely avoided in public discourse. Also important are the links between open borders and human smuggling; between ideology and exploitation; between tolerance and exploitation; between abortion and organ trafficking; or between censorship and complicity. Mainstream media will also never get into the organizations who are pushing these agendas, nor the complicit politicians. These topics don’t exist in isolation, and are interconnected.

2. Rep. Pamela Powers Hannley, Her Own Words

Let’s lock up the chronic abusers. I’m tired of reading stories about priests, church elders, coaches, Boy Scout leaders, and other adults who have spent their lives preying on children. Boyer’s 2019 bill would have given victims a voice. HB2889 doesn’t do that.

Mandatory sentencing feeds the prison industrial complex because it dictates a (often overly harsh) minimum sentence that judges must stick to. Why is mandatory sentencing a big deal? Because we know that justice in the United States is not colorblind. If our justice system were fair, the prison population would reflect the country’s population in terms of race and ethnicity. We all know that people of color are disproportionately imprisoned in this country. Once they have been prisoners, they lose their right to vote, and it is harder for them to get jobs and housing.

I voted against this bill because I stand against mandatory sentencing, for prison reform, and with the American Civil Liberties Union, Attorneys for Criminal Justice, and the American Friends Service Committee.

Let’s lengthen the time for adults who were abused as children to come forward and identify their abusers. That would go farther to stop child abuse than Biasiuuci’s bill.

This is actually an elected Representative in the Arizona State Legislature. Pamela Powers Hannley opposes a Bill to give child sexual offenders a mandatory life sentences. Although she does raise a few interesting issues about flaws in criminal justice, she loses the argument with another point. She opposes it since “people of colour” are the vast majority in prison. She believes that the prison population is supposed to reflect the nation’s general makeup, and not the makeup of people who commit crimes.

Strange that these types never seem to mind the fact that men comprise the bulk of the prison population. It seems equity has its limitations.

3. FBI Crime Statistics For Year 2019

51.2% – Murder and non-negligent manslaughter
26.7% – Rape
52.7% – Robbery
33.2% – Aggravated Assault
41.8% – Weapons; carrying, possessing, etc.
42.2% – Prostitution and commercialized vice
20.6% – Sex offenses (except rape and prostitution)
28.3% – Offenses against the family and children

That is from Table 43A of the FBI Crime Statistics for the year 2019. The numbers apply to blacks, who make up roughly 13% of the overall U.S. population. Are they disproportionately represented in American prisons? Yes, and for good reason. They commit a disproportionate amount of violent and sexual crimes.

However, a flaw in the reporting lumps whites and hispanics together, which makes the white crime rate seem much higher than it really is.

The idea that a prison population must reflect the population as a whole is ridiculous. It should reflect the makeup of people who actually commit serious crimes.

Perhaps Representative Hannley would support Gladue Rights, where we have different sets of laws based on race, in order to address these “disparities”. Or maybe she would support something like Bill C-75, which waters down the penalties for child sex offences. What does she think of California Senator Scott Wiener?

4. Text Of Arizona House Bill 2889

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona:

Section 1. Section 13-705, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

13-705. Dangerous crimes against children; sentences; definitions
.
A. A person who is at least eighteen years of age and who is convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving commercial sexual exploitation of a minor or child sex trafficking or involving molestation of a child and the person has previously been convicted of a dangerous crime against children in the first degree involving molestation of a child shall be sentenced to imprisonment in the custody of the state department of corrections for natural life. A person who is sentenced to natural life is not eligible for commutation, parole, work furlough, work release or release from confinement on any basis for the remainder of the person’s natural life.

Q. S. For the purposes of this section:
.
1. “Dangerous crime against children” means any of the following that is committed against a minor who is under fifteen years of age:
.
(a) Second degree murder.
(b) Aggravated assault resulting in serious physical injury or involving the discharge, use or threatening exhibition of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument.
(c) Sexual assault.
(d) Molestation of a child.
(e) Sexual conduct with a minor.
(f) Commercial sexual exploitation of a minor.
(g) Sexual exploitation of a minor.
(h) Child abuse as prescribed in section 13-3623, subsection A, paragraph 1.
(i) Kidnapping.
(j) Sexual abuse.
(k) Taking a child for the purpose of prostitution as prescribed in section 13-3206.
(l) Child sex trafficking as prescribed in section 13-3212.
(m) Involving or using minors in drug offenses.
(n) Continuous sexual abuse of a child.
(o) Attempted first degree murder.
(p) Sex trafficking.
(q) Manufacturing methamphetamine under circumstances that cause physical injury to a minor.
(r) Bestiality as prescribed in section 13-1411, subsection A, paragraph 2.
(s) Luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(t) Aggravated luring a minor for sexual exploitation.
(u) Unlawful age misrepresentation.
(v) Unlawful mutilation.
(w) Sexual extortion as prescribed in section 13-1428.

If she is going to oppose this Bill, HB2889, let’s be honest about what’s in it. It applies to people PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED OF certain serious offences, who commit them again. This concerns repeat offenders.

Moreover, the list of “dangerous crimes against children” includes extremely serious charges. These are not something that can be brushed off as youthful immaturity.

But sure, let’s not impose life sentences on repeat, child sexual predators, because white people aren’t committing enough crimes.