I am all for 29 stories; I'd go to twice that. But then I read: In the wintertime, you dont want the sun on the Oval because it has a thermal effect of melting the ice,
No stories for you!
As a white guy that has been arrested and detained by police for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, in Spryfield, because I matched the description of someone who perpetrated a crime, can I assume I was "racially profiled"? I have also been stopped for "random checks" a few times for walking/driving in early morning hours in the downtown area, should I assume that the police are out to get me? I get that we live in the age of unfounded accusations, but why must we use racially charged conjecture as arguments for basic human rights violations? We (as Canadians) have the RIGHT to travel from point (a) to point (b), unimpeded, and free of harrassment from police, or any other individual/organization. Police have basically been given carte blanche when it comes to policing thanks to unions and their arsenal of lawyers to act on their behalf, but when the police are untouchable and the citizenry are not protected from the very people hired to protect them, therein lies the real, tangible problem. Police can do what they want, because it costs them nothing, unlike your basic citizen that can be bankrupted by legal bills, and lose their jobs because of the mere suspicion of guilt. Even if the police are suspected of wrong doing, they union-up and get paid to stay home while the lawyers fight it out, au gratis (our tax dollars pay their union dues). Must be nice to wield all the power, with no responsibility as to how you roll it out.
The problem I see is a socioeconomic one moreso than a racial one, where the people with the least resources/education become the low hanging fruit that unfairly boost police powers and budgets. We should be ashamed that the real criminals (corporations, banks, etc...) are protected by the very policies that allow them to extort resources from OUR government that are meant for the very people we are caging for mere survival. The only colour that our legal system sees is green, and lots of it!!!
Is Tariq a fake account attempting to stir trouble ?
Patty: What shows up on our website's front page mostly depends on how recently the article was posted. Since this one went up before our latest issue came out, it was bumped by other pieces.
Why is this not on the front page? Who fucking cares what whobleejoo would ask Cheryl Blossom if she bumped into her getting a smoothie or whatever?
No Tariq99, the police are not responsible for that at all. It was the actions and choices of those young men that lead to their deaths.
I appreciate the frustration of the black community and urge them to look inward. There are a few members of their community that are creating problems and the police are responding as they should.
I question the use of some of the language used by the interviewees to describe their experiences, wondering if they are well-chosen ones to make a point. I've said it before: exaggerating waters down your argument and diminishes experience.
I'm not a fan of the police in any way and I'm not writing to defend them; but I'm also not a fan of hyperbole and embellishment.
That's why he threw in the presumably. At least, I presume.
I nominate Cranky for Coast Comment of the Year.
But David Fraser says "The Coast is trustworthy"? I think I need a new lawyer as he is obviously rather addled at the moment.
All of that free dope in evidence lockup is obviously having an effect on performance.
I love it when people think witty retorts will change public policy or in this case, the basic tenets of law. And even funnier is that they don't realize how foolish they look, making uninformed comments and suggestions.
Hey Chris - TLDR...
James, have ever heard of risk reduction as a strategy? Google risk reduction and you will have a better understanding of the decision to employ it. Until then, you are making uneducated claims which makes you look a bit foolish.
The thing is, I believe that cabbie probably did assault her (based on his history). However what I believe, doesn't hold water in court. In court you need PROOF. Unfortunately, there is this matter of he said, she said. Perhaps she did consent, perhaps she didn't. I don't know, and neither does Lenehan. As he has said (however ineloquently) a drunk person can consent. If she was too drunk to recall details, than her testimony is flawed. Sorry.
In another perspective, a person with an Arab name was acquitted. That's a (depressing) victory for law and order over hearsay and prejudice. I wish I had a better response but we just can't convict of crimes because we are angry.
A $1 million dollar comfy cushion to those putting their health at risk, and the health of the community at risk. Bravo, Nova Scotia! Sympathy for the devil. Can't stop it, so let's throw money at it? Now it's safer? Gross.
We need more arab-Canadian judges, Nova Scotia is multicultural.
Firstly, no matter where the money came from it should be invested in the very lowest risk yet still interest bearing assets, like short term federal bonds. In terms of addressing the actual article debate about the interest, I'm sure there is a complicated legal framework which is in debate within the city and that's why it's still hanging there. My view is each deposit from each case should have it's own lifecycle. If money is seized that after a court case eventually is determined to be above board or a victim claims it, it should be returned with interest. If that deposit is determined to be proceeds of crime in which there is no victim to claim or expected claimant (closed drug case, counterfeiting). After time, if reasonable efforts to determine likely ownership were made and still no claimants,, give that money to the city anti-crime efforts on X date (statute of limitations?). Obviously some lawyers likely need to be involved to decide how/if that can happen, but at the end of the day if the source $ is a proceed of illicit activities in which there are no 'victims' that choose to claim it, that $ belongs to the jurisdiction (city) that found it.
* continued - of course the homeless/pandhandling population has problems that will not be solved by a couple days of workshop and some free product. Half probably won't make a full day. However, if it works for even just a few people, the rest will see the success and the winners will teach their friends, and the others will witness and start to emulate.
If you travel to Asia or a good number of other countries, you will see people come up to sell you trinkets, not change-askers..
If anyone agrees, I will put in $100 for 3 of us to raise $300 and get some product to get to 3 people. Easy peasy. I chose only 2 other partners because as a seed this is easy to start, and easy for us to chat and decide what/when details.
The three of us could make this happen this week if we want, not a big commitment.. We buy $100 of something sellable and go collectively pick 3 change-askers on Spring Garden to set them up. Might work and be great, might not and cost essentially nothing.
email@example.com email me if you're in, lets do something great for the city together.
Today I went through the drive through at McDonalds outside the Halifax Shopping Center, and right after the order box was a kid selling chocolate almonds. Probably 8-10 years old, selling chocolate almonds for $4/box. He sold both the cars in front of me, and also me. 100% closer.
He had a name tag on which I'm sure said something about what he was selling for, it didn't matter. I didn't read it nor do I care. It was -20C today and he was right there.
I bought a box. I also bought him a hot chocolate parked to walk back and give it to him. Too cold for him to be out there standing on the cold and sunless and windy side of the building no less.
All this to say, take that $15,000 and give the 'homeless but trying' something to work with. Tourist season is coming. House them for a few days, teach and show them and give them something they can sell. Almonds, art, Halifax souveniers. Something. They don't want to beg and nor should they. Give them something people want, so that passerby's will look towards instead of away from them, and once the newfound entrepreneurs see how much more effective it is than begging, they will be both empowered and better cared for.
"do it again"...well no...there isn't. That's because he isn't sexist. If people were to read the decision I think they would very quickly wonder why the public (mostly Social Justice Warriors who invade every facet of media and are the only ones who can be heard) are so upset about the judge. His ruling and wording certainly wouldn't match the "public" response.
Halifax's sex secrets revealed
Features from The Coast
The couple's guide to everything.
Search 100s of Halifax restaurants, bars and cafes
The official handbook to student life in Halifax.
Designers, stores and fashion, all locally-sourced.
All the beer, all over town
The Coast's Well Being Guide
Interior design and home accessories in Halifax.
Coast Publishing Ltd.