What on Earth is this???

I am convinced this must be a joke of some sort......
Ok, the funniest, well, at least the most demented thing just happened to me, I was googling safety tips for halloween and I found a site which, once I read it, I thought was a spoof making fun of religious 'fanatics'.

I actually sent an email asking of the site was a joke.........it's not.
Here's the first page I read "10 Halloween Tips for Holyweeners" seems a bit extreme.
So I am looking around the site for the disclaimer and I find this under "Staff". Yes, that is a photo of some KKK members around a burning cross, that's when I sent the email asking if the site was a joke.
I then wandered over to their Forum, I figured that's where I would find the jokes and disclaimers, what I found, was a bit shocking. I'll let you go there on your own if you want, but the summary was a buch of racist, bigoted, unbelievable, garbage. I was stunned, I couldn't believe it, I still wonder if somehow it's a farce, but I don't think it's funny really.
Anyways, I'm still in shock and now I'm scared I have sent an IP trail to some white supremasist psychopath, luckily I didn't sign my name and they're in Landover, (on their way landUNDER in my humble opinion). Do peole like this really believe that is what God wants?
Let me know and I'll be sure to let you know what Pastor Psychopants sends as a reply.

School fees, the school can keep mine.

I have a question, am I the only person who doesn't mind paying school fees?
I admit that to make a fair judgment on whether it's worth it I would need to see the salaries for the staff that don't work in schools, the job description and pay rates of the school board office staff, but unless they are earning 6 and 7 digit salaries I don't think most districts schools are wasting their money.
Why do parents want to run the school districts out of business under the guise of fighting for the free education everyone is entitled to. They also don't want to pay the increased taxes that would be needed to offset the fees. They want to go to staples to buy their school supplies, I think they may want the teachers to earn less money, after all, we saw how few supported them during the strike last fall. I understand some of where the high school parents are coming from, but not all of it.
So what do these parents think will happen when the schools can't afford to run?
I suspect it will involve private schools, I don't know if people know this but it costs a lot more then public school.
I personally would rather pay $30.00 per year plus $5.00 for the agenda then $15,00 or even more.
$35.00 < $15,000.00
What do you think?

Where is the justice?

Here is one of the things that pisses me off more then a lot of others.
I don't think I have anything against authority, that doesn't always apply to my parents, but I appreciate and respect the job of the ones who 'serve & protect'.
On the other hand, when these people, including teachers and others in positions of authority and trust abuse our children and other vulnerable members of society, it just sickens me.

Justin Harris is an RCMP officer in Prince George BC, he was accused of having sex with prostitutes.
He maintains his innocence but we will never have a third party hear the matter because the RCMP seem to have delayed getting the matter to a hearing stage, and it turns out there is a statute of limitations which has conveniently run out.
I don't think that the RCMP should investigate their own, period.
The following is an example of a time when the RCMP laid charges against one of their own for engaging in a sexual affair with a 17 year old girl.

The charge was breach of trust. An RCMP officer is in a position of authority and, as such, is held to a higher standard of conduct. To a 17-year-old girl, an RCMP officer in his 40s would definitely be in a position of authority – a person to be trusted. To take advantage of the uniform and have sex with a 17-year-old girl is definitely a breach of trust.
Or is it?
Here’s the kicker in the case, and it will send groups like the Prince George Sexual Assault Centre, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and the Phoenix Transition Society around the bend. It certainly did me.
The judge who heard the case acquitted the officer on the charge of breach of trust because of the history of the girl involved.
She had basically been on the streets since she was 12. She had a child when she was 14 years old, the father of which was another man three times her age. She had drug and alcohol problems. She was a street kid – through and through. She grew up on the wrong side of the tracks and that was held against her because the school of hard knocks gives a better education than the school system, I suppose.
The judge ruled that because she had led just a tough, marginalized existence in her 17 years, that she was much more mature than your average 17-year-old and, thus, knew what she was getting into when she had sex with an RCMP officer in his 40s. The RCMP officer had no culpability because the girl he had sex with had been marginalized all her life.
The service providers are right – it’s time to start the debate about sexual violence.

So here we are, neglecting children in bad situations, neglecting homeless people, and then when the damage from all the mistreatment and neglect sets in, we abuse them a little more and then blame them and their situation for the abuse they recieve. The fact that she was 17 and had no home, as well as a drug and alcohol problem make the whole thing even worse to me.
Do you think organizations such as the RCMP should investigate their own members?

Talk about grasping at straws

A billboard has gone up in Maple ridge for Breast Cancer Month (October).
At least one breast cancer survivor in Maple Ridge is offended.

Jennifer St. Hilaire said she nearly drove off the road when she passed the intersection at Lougheed Highway and Kennedy Road Saturday afternoon.
“I did a double take,” she said.
A billboard plastered with the face of a pretty young woman screamed out: “Why wasn't I told?” At the bottom was a web site address: www.abortionbreastcancer.com.
“I couldn’t believe what I was seeing,” St. Hilaire said.
Their website cites scientific research that shows a link between the two.
Findings from the National Cancer Institute show that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.
Pitt Meadows mayor Don MacLean finds the ad distasteful but said the district is no an arbiter of good taste.
The Jim Pattison Group billboard is on property owned by the Ministry of Highways.
Council has referred St. Hilaire to Advertising Standard Canada, a regulatory body that takes complaints about advertising.
“It’s not up to council to make a decision on it,” said MacLean.
St. Hilaire believes the billboard should be taken down by the district since it is within their boundaries.

I think this is a billboard about abortion, not breast cancer.
Regardless of where anyone stands on the matter of abortion the 2 are not related. I don't think it's fair to anyone, not to women who have had to go through something as traumatic as breast cancer, abortion, or both.
I really hope the city does the right thing and finds a way to take the billboard down, October is breast cancer month, not anti-abortion month.

This is quoted from the National Cancer Institute
studies consistently showed no association between induced and spontaneous abortions and breast cancer risk.

What the hell is this about?

Ok, we have some laws in Canada, they address probably cause. The jist of these laws is that the police can not come to your house and search it for no reason. Somewhere in there, they also can't come into your house to look for dead bodies and charge you with other things they may find. There may be limits to this but I am not sure what they are.
I guess it has it's place, and in this day and age of conspiracy theories, they are reassuring. However, there is a time and place for those laws and I am not sure that I like how it affected the following story

Gun-toting ex-soldier acquitted
Cops had no right to search man's pack, where they found a firearm, judge says Keith Fraser, The ProvincePublished: Wednesday, October 25, 2006
A former U.S. army soldier found carrying a loaded handgun in his backpack has been acquitted after a judge found that police breached his rights while engaging in a "fishing expedition."
Kenneth Allen Peters, 42, was under a firearms ban while on statutory release when he was approached by two New Westminster police officers at a SkyTrain station on Oct. 2, 2005.
Previously deported six times from Canada, Peters was speaking on his cellphone and had made no attempt to board a series of trains that had gone by. When police asked what he was doing, he replied that he was waiting for a friend who would be on the next train.
Peters gave police a false name, which they ran on their computer. The name showed up as an alias used by a federal inmate on statutory release banned from carrying firearms.
Peters then produced a piece of paper with the name Ken Peters on it. The police arrested him for giving a false name and searched his backpack.
They found a Sig Sauer hand-gun loaded with hollow point ammunition. They also found a box of ammunition for the gun, a gun holster, $7,300 Cdn and $140 US.
Peters was charged with possessing a loaded prohibited or restricted firearm, obstructing a police officer and possessing a firearm while being prohibited from doing so.
But his lawyers argued that police had no reasonable grounds to suspect criminal activity and Peters was wrongly detained and searched.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Selwyn Romilly agreed, finding that the police testimony that their search of the backpack was for officer safety was "ludicrous."
He said the accused was already handcuffed and it would be easy to push the backpack out of reach and the accused was not patted down after he was detained.
The judge called the search a "fishing expedition," with the two constables -- Scott Maglio and Gerard Kress -- interfering in the accused's liberty in the hope they could acquire grounds to arrest him.
kfraser@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Province 2006

Canada's Tories Propose 3 Strikes Law

It sounds nice, it sounds like something that would work, but realistically, it isn't either.
I know I often am accused of being a bleeding heart, I don't really mind the title. I know that just because I have common sense, and from time to time can see that something needs to be done differently with certain types of criminals is not a bad thing. I have no real problem with criminals going to jail, I know that something need to be done to deter crime from being commited. I just don't think this is the answer.

Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby calls the bill partisan political posturing -- and bad legal policy.
"The Tories get votes from bashing criminals and Canadians simply seem stupid enough to bite on this again, and again, and again," Ruby said.
"It doesn't matter whether it's effective, it doesn't matter if it's good policy. The electorate loves it."
A University of Toronto law professor said taxpayers would be stuck paying for additional prison spaces, while the bill wouldn't reduce crime rates.
"There have been many studies that show that the severity of punishment does not really affect the deterrence of crime. The possibility of detection does," said Peter Rosenthal.
"Criminals don't sit around thinking, 'They've increased it now to four years [in jail] -- I'd better not rob that store. But for two years I'd do it.' Nobody thinks like that."

In California they have the 3 strikes law. This has done nothing to lower the crime rates, all it has done is radically increase the prison population (and the taxpayers' costs). It has also increased the amount of women struggling to raise families with no support from the father (who even as a criminal may be able to provide some assistance to the mother and children) for around 25 years.
I have no idea what the sentances of Canada's version would look like, but we currently have a Dangerous Offender law which can be used against sexual and violent offenders (the crimes must be worth 10 years while the 3 strikes would only need to be worth 2 years) which may or may not actually be being used to it's full potential. I think this new proposed law is nothing more then a band aid, not to mention politically motivated.

Stereotyping and Discrimination alive and well.

There is a "women's" expo coming up soon where I live, this is an event geared towards women on many levels, there will be a sex toy booth, pole dancing lessons, fashion shows, and half naked firemen.
There was also going to be a feature fashion show by one of the particpants "Fantasy Dancewear"
A little background: Charlene Started designing costumes for exotic dancers (not sure when, at least 10 years ago). Many of her creations rival vagas showgirl costumes.
Lately in the lower mainland many of the exotic dancing establishments are being shut down. Due to this, and the fact that she stays home to raise her 3 children , she has started to branch out to more mainstream audiences. She has won accolades for her costume designing for festivals, she has also started to market her designs to average women, this follows the mainstreaming of things like pole dancing.
During the women's expo she was going to have a 20 minute fashion show as well as a booth which would have more information on her designs, now she won't. The problem? Her models, exotic dancers. It turns out, the organizer of the event (a man) has taken it upon himself to decide that her creations will not appeal to the attendees, at one point he mentioned that if she got models that were not strippers, she may still be able to participate with her fashion show. He also told her that the costumes may be offensive to women attending the event (he obviously has not visited her website which has gallery photos of her works), as well as any children who said women may bring along. He excused the pole dancers on account of the fact the will be in "sports wear" which presumably includes hot shorts and sports bras. Never mind the sex toy booth which will definately include a variety of rubber penises which I would think at least equally, if not more offensive then sequin covered costumes.

I am offended that this man has the audacity to claim he can speak for the women attending the Expo. This is obviously an event that hopes to liberate women, we can see at least 2 instances where sexuality comes into play, so we know it's not that. It seems to be simply nothing more then the occupation of the models.
He doesn't mind the firefighters getting 1/2 naked afterall.

www.fantasydancewear.com

Stripper models too risqué for B.C. runway
Date : Thursday, October 12, 2006

The stay-at-home mom says the show's producer felt it would be too risqué to use the dancers. "It was hard enough finding them. And I said, 'OK, so if I changed my models, would that make a difference?'"
"And he said, 'Yeah, it probably would.'"
Show's producer concerned about dancers and attire
Murray Olcat, who is producing the show, agrees he had concerns about Rowley's choice of models, but also says the designs are a potential problem.

Can somebody please explain this to me?!?!?!?
This is the stuff that pisses me off!
I will try to get this out in a clear, concise manner.
In 1988 Sean Deacon had been convicted for 5 counts of sexual assault and one count of abduction.
1 x 5 year old girl
1 x 6 year old boy
1 x 8 year old boy
1 x 13 year old boy
1 x sexual assault.

Once convicted (but before the sentence of 7 years) he abducted and again assaulted the 13 year old boy again.
1 x 13 year old boy
for a total of:
5 assaults on children + 1 abduction = "7" years (about 5 years in Canadian).

In 1993 he was released, by 1994 he was back in jail for violating his terms, I don't know what the terms were that he violated but it must have been a lot more then breaking curfew to be remanded.

1996, he was convicted on sexual interference with a 5 year old boy and receieved 2 years less a day (which I believe is to stay in provincial as opposed to federal prison but I will try to comfirm).
1998, while on probation he plead guilty to two counts of assault and one count of sexual interference by touching for a sexual purpose involving an 11-year-old boy.
3 weeks after being released on the last charges he was found in the company of a 10 year old boy (at the halfway house he had been sent to in Vancouver), no assaults were charged so I will give the benefit of the doubt that he was 'only' breaking one of his conditions, and was sentenced to 2 years in jail.
Ok, so let's recap

Sexual Assaults that he was caught/convicted for:
1 x 5 year old girl
1 x 6 year old boy
1 x 8 year old boy
1 x 13 year old boy
1 x 13 year old boy
1 x sexual assault
1 x sexual 'interefrence' 5 year old boy
1 x sexual touching 11 year old boy

Abductions he was caught/convicted for:
1 x abduction
1 x abduction 13 yr old boy

So, this sounds like a dangerous offender right? Wrong!
This pedophile was recently released into a halfway house in Kelowna BC, while there he fought to remove the supervision conditions on his bail, as well as arguing against taking drugs to limit his "sex" drive. He lost.
He then went back to jail for 2 months for another bail violation.
After that? He was released to Vancouver, to the same facility where he was found in the company of the 10 year old boy in 1998.

5 bail breaches in under 2 years
+
10 or more charges for sexually abusing kids
=
Being released and having the taxpayers foot the bill so he can be monitered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year until his supervision order expires in 2013, when I fear that he will once again become a free "person" if you can call him that.
I think that while this supervision is supposed to protect the public, all it amounts to is private security for this bastard.
Now I don't know if this post will make much sense so I provided a link to the story at the top of my rant.
There is a law in Canada that allows Dangerous Offenders to be locked up indefinately
If this individual doesn't qualify, who the hell does???

Ok, here I am and I'm pissed off!
This is hopefully going to be an opportunity where I can speak freely and say things that may not always be PC (politically correct).
I usually get pissed off when I hear of children being abused, this abuse can take on many forms, it can be direct, or indirect (through cuts to programs and funding for children's resources).
I will probably stick to rants and sharing my opinions on news that I read up on, be it local to me or otherwise.
I'll try to keep the cussing to a bare minimum and look forward to reading your comments.