Shop Mayorgate

Mayorgate now has available a range of merchandise, T-shirts, Hoodies, Tote bags and Art prints. The featured design on the products are the 'Emancipated Monkeys' of Mayorgate.

Since Mayorgate's first article was published some two-and-a-half years ago we have challenged the boundaries of conventional media. At Mayorgate we do not share any political alliances nor do we present a biased angle to any article. We strongly believe that the more people question the status quo the healthier our society becomes.

The cheeky monkeys believe in speaking even when not spoken to, hearing all that is secretive or discreet and seeing all that is hidden, and they speak in many languages as Mayorgate is read in over a dozen countries.

So come and take the cheeky monkeys of Mayorgate home and take them for a walk, they may even start a conversation. 

GET THE T-SHIRT

WEAR A HOODY

CARRY A TOTE

HANG IT ON YOUR WALL

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

SUPPORT Only Canadian Entry in the Global Art Awards

As Canadians we share the pride of one of our own achieving recognition on the world stage. It has never mattered what the field may be, whether it was music with such world stars as Nickleback, Buble, Levine, Furtado or Bieber. Hollywood has seen the talent of Canadian actors in the likes of John Candy, Christopher Plummer, Donald Sutherland, Micheal J. Fox, Rian Gosling, Rachel McAdams, Ellen Page and so many more. Whether in the field of the arts, sport or even world politics, it was Canada's Lester B. Pearson who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his tireless work during the Suez Crisis, we stand up and cheer for our Canadian achievement with pride.

Mayorgate's own Alexandra Davidoff, an artist all readers are familiar with has entered an international art competition, and she is the only Canadian entry. The Global Art Awards, (GAA) are conducted annually by the Global Art Agency of Amsterdam Holland. Alexandra Davidoff is the only Canadian artist competing for the Best Global Artist of the Year 2012 award.

Alexandra's caricatures provide a visual extension to each article, yet each stands on its own. She has avoided the cliche of extending physical features and has chosen instead to provide a visual commentary worthy of discussion and thought. But her talents extend far beyond these caricatures as you can see for yourself. Alexandra is a self-taught artist who began as we all do with stick people. Though most of us never surpass such artistic achievements by adding anything more to the sticks, Alexandra has spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours sharpening her natural talent.

The result of all the hours spent is her entry in the Global Art Awards titled Futuristic Fishnet. Alexandra's paintings hang on the front of our home and traffic often slows down to look and passers by stop to view the vivid expressions of life brought to blank canvas.

Support a Canadian artist with her attempt at gaining her first international award. Voting is open to all and it is the number of public votes each contestant gathers that determines their chance at progressing to stage two and the final stage of the competition. The simple process of how to vote is added here for you, now please support a Canadian artist whose talent deserves recognition. Help place the Canadian flag at the Global Art Awards and Alexandra Davidoff to become the first Canadian to be chosen as the Best Global Artist of the Year.

How to Vote:

Follow this LINK

Click LIKE in top right corner 

Scroll to find "Futuristic Fishnet" 

Click VOTE below the name of Alexandra Davidoff  

If you do not have a facebook, hard to believe these days, then go to a friend's and vote for a Canadian in the Global Art Awards, Alexandra's talent is deserving of your vote.

Official announcement on the Global Art Agency Facebook page

Alexandra Davidoff had received votes from many corners of the globe as well as her home country Canada. Alexandra's entry 'Futuristic Fishnet' brought the attention and votes from the United States of America, England, Spain, Israel, Netherlands, France, Germany, Russia, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa and more totalling 148 votes and making Alexandra the clear winner of the public vote, the people's choice for the Best Global Artist 2012 Award.

Global Art Agency on December 1^st 2012 chose a local Dutch artist, Loes Van Delft, as the winner of the competition. Congratulations to all the artists who entered into the Global Arts Competition.

Alexandra now has presented her latest work on YouTube in the form of a book trailer for a children's book titled 'Harri & Luna'. Each frame of this animated piece was digitally hand painted by Alexandra to bring to life the characters of this children's adventure story.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

Unity versus Sovereignty

Canadians are proud of their country, though it may be said, quietly so. Our history does not have the turmoil or struggle of other lands, and we are accepting of all who come to our shores for a better life. Tolerance has been a key to the growth and maturity of Canada, and it is that tolerance to once again allow an insult to all Canadians be publicly carried out. On September 17^th 2012 the freshly elected Premier of Quebec, Pauline Marois took down the Canadian flag from the ceremonial chamber of the national assembly as members of her minority government were sworn in. Standing alone was the Quebec Fleur-de-lis.

This was not the first time that Canada's National Standard had been removed from the Quebec legislature. Regardless of Premier Marois' feelings or opinions the Quebec legislature and its provincial government is a part of a nation. Whether it is Madame Marois or any of her newly elected minority government, each carries a Canadian birth certificate and a Canadian passport. Each took an oath of office under the laws of Canada, and each is responsible to uphold the laws of Canada.

The PQ's desires for sovereignty did in the end bend to hypocrisy and swear allegiance to the Queen. In fact the entire PQ caucus had no choice but to swear an oath to the monarch. Hypocrisy at its finest. No one can take public office in Canada without the prerequisite of swearing an oath to the British Monarch, yet the insult to the nation as a whole was to be tolerated.

Brave men and women carry on their uniforms the Canadian flag, too many have come home with the Canadian symbol draped over them in honour of their sacrifice. In battle the standard of a nation is never allowed to fall and is carried with pride. Yet we here in Canada seem to find an acceptance of such an act as not being anything more than changing the drapes on a window.

Canada's Heritage Minister James Moore's spokesman Sebastien Gariepy had this to say in an email. “We do not believe that Quebecers wish to revisit the old constitutional battles of the past.” (News 25, September 19, 2012). Premier Marois has stressed on more than one occasion that her government will aim to achieve Quebec's separation from Canada, does the federal government believe this to be a lie then? Quebec Liberal MP Stephane Dion was not surprised that the Canadian flag was removed, yet at least Mr. Dion did publicly state that he believed federal politicians should stand up for our national symbol.

We teach our children tolerance in order to develop harmony in their lives, yet we do not teach them to surrender their pride or dignity. There has to be limitations beyond which tolerance is only seen as cowardice.

Canada's Confederation of 1867 brought together three British colonies to become four provinces of the new dominion. "The existing Province of Canada was divided into the new provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and two other colonies, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, also became provinces of the Dominion of Canada” (Wikipedia – Canadian Confederation). All the colonies that became involved in the Canadian Confederation were initially part of New France, and were once ruled by France. The British in 1763 through the Treaty of Paris gained control of New France, which ended the Seven Year War. True our historic connection to France is at our roots, our very birth, yet it was also British and together The Fathers of Confederation saw reason to join together and form a nation.

The sovereignty movement does not look at the retention of historic links, it is a movement that has one motivation, and that is the division of Canada. In the early 1960's former European colonies of Cameroon, Congo, Senegal, Algeria and Jamaica were being granted independence, and advocates of Quebec's independence found a similarity in their cause as those newly independent states. Yet Quebec was not a colony under the possession of British Canada. It was a partner in the union of Canada and a province within Canada.

A jolt in the arm of sovereignty advocates came in June 1967 from the French President Charles de Gaulle. The French president was visiting Canada for Expo 67 and the Canadian Centennial. His famous exclamation “Vive le Quebec libre!,” during a speech at Montreal's city hall brought loud applause from those committed to Quebec independence, though not so much from the Canadian federal government or Canadians as a whole.

In October 1968 the Parti Quebecois (PQ) was born with the merging of Ralliement national (RN), Mouvement souverainete-association (MSA) and Rassemblement pour l'independance nationale (RIN). It is through the PQ that the sovereignty movement has found its voice and strength, to the rest of Canada only turmoil.

Two referendums on the sovereignty issue, one in 1980 and another in 1995 had failed. Both the Meech Lake Accord, where an attempt to provide constitutional recognition of Quebec as a 'distinct society', and then the Charlottown Accord failed. The failure of both referendums and the Meech Lake and Charlottown Accords brought a greater zeal to the sovereignty movement.

Where do we go as Canadians on this issue? How logical can it be to have a nation within a nation? Today's issues of security cannot be ignored and the logistics of such a division are impossible to fathom. For those in Quebec who call for separation a realization must be accepted that all the costs will be their own. The rest of Canada will not, and under no circumstances cannot provide the financial assistance towards separation. How can the Quebec tax basically achieve such a goal?

Still the voices for separation have gained a victory at this time, or have they. The newly elected premier has only a minority government destined to face a road filled with frustration ahead. Premier Marois is quoted as saying “My government is a sovereignist one. We have the conviction that the future of Quebec is that of a sovereign country.” Premier Marois and the PQ hold 54 seats, the Liberals 50, the Coalition Avenir Quebec 19 and 2 for Quebec Solidairie. Coalition Avenir Quebec's platform was based on the belief that the division between federalists and sovereignists paralyses, and the Coalition will promote neither sovereignty nor Canadian unity. Both the PQ and the Opposition Liberal party will court the Coalition's 19 votes and the games begin.

It is Canada as a country that in the end has to bear the bruises. Now weeks after our flag was removed by the newly elected Marois anger has subsided and the act no longer news. What will come next?

Perhaps it is important that we acknowledge and accept our distinct individuality yet it is our commonality of being Canadian which should motivate us toward our future and that of our children and grandchildren.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

The more people question the status quo, the healthier our society remains.

Mayorgate from its inception has stood against the voluntary censorship imposed by conventional media. Media moguls still labour under the illusion that they are the king makers when the fact is that they swear allegiance to either the left, right or centre, and then tow the line. Mayorgate's articles are not always popular with those who are in the spotlight, yet each article stands on its own ready for any criticism or comment, in fact we welcome your comments and opinions.

As publisher I am making an appeal to our readers who can afford a contribution in these difficult times to please use the donate button (in the top right hand corner), with whatever amount you can. We do not receive federal nor provincial funding of any sort and ask our readers to help us grow.

A Toothless Watchdog

The Office of the Ombudsman, what really is it? It claims to be “Ontario's Watchdog,” but how is it really the watchdog. Many of us believe that if wrong-doing by government has been identified that such issues can be brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. Yet how many know that the powers of the Ombudsman are limited to our elected representatives. In truth there is no oversight body at all in existence in Ontario that has any authority over the elected representatives of government. It is up to the individual citizen to find the money and hire a lawyer to bring the issue to the courts. As often the case, the politician has more money and a more expensive lawyer.

We are faced today with the example of Toronto's Mayor Rob Ford's limitless arrogance awaiting adjudication by Ontario's courts. Toronto's Integrity Commissioner found Mayor Ford in breach of the Municipal Act Conflict of Interest Legislation. Mayor Ford ignored the Integrity Commissioner and it has been up to a private individual to take action and bring Mayor Ford before the court. Ford's lawyer is quoted as saying, .... “You don't have to obey the law, an order, that is clearly unlawful.” (Natalie Alcoba, National Post)

Who decides that a law is improper or fair? Regardless, there is no sign of the Ombudsman nor any real action other than empty words by the Integrity Commissioner.

A budget of 10.75 million dollars for the 2011-2012 operating period and a staff with titles such as 'early resolution officer', the Office of the Ombudsman makes some impressive claims. In Ontario the Office of the Ombudsman was instituted in 1975, with powers and authorities set out in the Ombudsman Act. The Ombudsman is independent of government and political parties, and his job is to hold government accountable by reviewing and investigating public complaints about the administration of government services.

Sounds impressive, more so as the Ombudsman has the power to enter any government premises to gather evidence, and the power to compel witnesses to give evidence. “He may investigate and report his findings publicly if he finds that a decision, recommendation, act or omission of a body he oversees was contrary to law, unreasonable, unjust, oppressive, discriminatory, based on a mistake of law or fact, or simply wrong,” (Wikipedia, Ontario Ombudsman).

These powers are augmented by teams at the Ombudsman's office such as SORT and OMLET. Yet the reality is simple and somewhat alarming, that not one elected representative's egg has ever been cracked to date. SORT (Special Ombudsman Response Team) brags of training hundreds of investigators and ombudsman around the world since the inception of its annual training course titled “Sharpening Your Teeth.” Still all of this looks good in annual reports to justify the 10.75 million dollar budget, the reality paints a different picture one that is far less impressive.

Our Ombudsman has no authority at all to do anything with those elected into public office regardless how dishonest, arrogant or plainly corrupt they might be. He cannot question, compel or investigate in any way a cabinet minister regardless of how definite the evidence is that proves that minister's breaches. OMLET, SORT and all the “Sharpening” of Teeth is simply a fallacy.

Our Ombudsman and his team was provided with clear evidence of a cabinet minister who had instructed directors from his ministry to lie and alter reports that had been entered into official record. It was not a simple allegation without supporting evidence.

Minister Jim Bradley, Minister of the Environment had requested Lisa Feldman Director of Investigation and Enforcement to alter what were instructions set out in a ministry report of February 16^th 2011. Minister Jim Bradley requested Director Bill Bardswick to alter and add to a report submitted in March 2010. Ministry of the Environment reports are official documents submitted under the protocol of the Environmental Bill of Rights. A copy is provided to the individual who had applied for an investigation under the EBR and a copy to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. The ECO then combines MOE reports into his annual report which he presents to the Ontario Legislature.

Official documents were being altered by an elected member of our Ontario Provincial Parliament. Clear evidence was provided to support these very serious allegations and the Office of the Ombudsman appointed an Early Resolution Officer, one Maggie DiDomizio to conduct the investigation. It is difficult to understand what is the role of an 'early resolution officer' at the Office of the Ombudsman. Who are these 'officers', what experience or knowledge do they have. According to the Ombudsman's Act they have some authority at their disposal. The title of such an individual infers that it is their job to find some form of resolution to a situation therefore avoiding an investigation? In this case no resolution was possible and only an investigation at a senior level was required. Maggie DiDomizio found herself out of her depth and that became alarmingly apparent with her actions.

True the Ombudsman has no power or authority over the Ontario government, its ministers or how it conducts its business of politics. Still one would think there is enough authority to question the directors and other employees of a ministry and comprehend the material provided. DiDomizio presented a report in relation to file #187333, and proved the real impotence of the Office of the Ombudsman. In fact DiDomizio simply became a mouthpiece for Director Feldman in presenting another lie and now altering a part of the original report submitted by the MOE. DiDomizio ignored written confirmation provided by the author of the original report of 2011 and totally ignored what was presented in relation to Director Bardswick. When questioned about the status of any investigation of that situation, DiDomizio simply refused to reply and claimed she was out of the office till September 17^th.

DiDomizio in her report states “She (the Director of Investigations and Enforcement) said that, while there is no MOE offence relating to the parking of the vehicles, the MOE made a suggestion that the vehicles be moved as their location could possibly be a concern for the City of St. Catharines.” The original MOE report of February 16^th 2011 states “As a preventative measure, the property owner has already been advised to move the damaged vehicles away from the property lines so as to lessen the potential for fluids to move offsite and to clean up any spills detected in a timely manner.”

The original report of February 16^th 2011 was signed by Ass. Dep. Min. Kevin French. On behalf of Kevin French an email was sent on July 16^th 2012 by Jayne Harten, Issues Manager and Strategic Advisor Office of the ADM Operations Division. Jayne Harten states, “Ministry staff spoke to the property owner of Sun Collision, Mr. Sam Demita, during their visit on January 5 2011 and followed up with a written letter dated January 13 2011, requesting that the damaged vehicles be parked away from the fence line as a preventative measure. This request was outlined in the EBR decision summary which was sent to you in February 2011. A copy was also provided to Sun Collision.”

A copy of the original report of February 16^th 2011 and of the email by Jayne Harten on behalf of Ass. Dep. Min. Kevin French were provided and at the disposal of DiDomizio. In addition to both of these documents DiDomizio had a copy of the letter from Director Feldman, in fact DiDomizio states “I note that the Director said in her June 13 2012 letter that the MOE would convey your concerns to the City...” Feldman had this to say in her June 13^th letter, “You have expressed concerns in your emails about damaged vehicles parked by the fence on the Sun Collision property, a concern that you also raised in correspondence to Minister Bradley in February of 2012. In response to those concerns, the Ministry determined that there is no evidence of an offence in regards to this matter, and as such no action will be taken by the Ministry with respect to that issue.”

Nowhere at any time did it state that the MOE suggested the vehicles be moved because it may be a concern to the City of St. Catharines as is now claimed in the report by DiDomizio. Both the report of February 2011 and the email from Jayne Harten on behalf of Ass. Dep. Min. French made it clear that Sam Demita of Sun Collision was told to move the damaged vehicles in three separate ways, and on three separate occasions. It would seem that the MOE meant what they said, going to such lengths. Yet Director Feldman lied to an investigator from the Ombudsman's office, why? DiDomizio had all this at her disposal and yet monkeyed Feldman's lie! Is DiDomizio so ignorant of the evidence or did she have another motivation, one less pleasant to discuss? DiDomizio compromised the Office of the Ombudsman and must be investigated now herself.

It was not enough that DiDomizio parroted new lies by the Director of Investigations and Enforcement she also lied herself as to the author of the original complaint brought before the Ombudsman. DiDomizio states that in relation to the complaint “You questioned how the property owner could refuse to comply with MOE's instructions without consequence and alleged that the MOE had intentionally falsified its February 16 2011 report, which you claim is a breach of the Environmental Bill of Rights (the EBR).” An absolute lie by DiDomizio, either that or she has a serious problem in comprehending the English language. In my original letter to the Ombudsman it was made clear that the MOE had allowed a business owner to ignore its instructions potentially putting a neighbourhood at risk. At no point was it claimed “that the MOE had intentionally falsified its February 16 2011 report.”

Clear evidence had been provided that MOE had attempted to alter details of reports that they had filed officially on record. What was the reason for DiDomizio to lie? She continued to prove her incompetence with this statement: “The Ombudsman does not oversee the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, or any other officers of the legislature.” First of all the Environmental Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and he presents his final annual report to the Legislative Assembly. According to Wikipedia, “Ontario's Ombudsman oversees and investigates public complaints about the government of Ontario, including more than 500 provincial government ministries, agencies, corporations, tribunals, boards and commissions.”

That aside, at no point in the original letter had any request been made for an investigation nor any form of oversight of the Environmental Commissioner. The letter did state to the Ombudsman on July 15^th 2012, “As your procedure is to speak to representatives of the ministry in question it is of utmost importance that you also speak to Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. Mr. Miller has been made aware of all details of the ministry attempts to alter details of reports filed under the Environmental Bill of Rights.” How was it possible in any way to misunderstand this?

Mr. Peter Lapp, Director of Operations at the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario states in a letter dated August 28^th 2012, “In your letters you state that you have forwarded your concerns to the Ombudsman. The ECO will cooperate in every way with any request from the Ombudsman.” The ECO has no powers to commence “own-motion” investigations and this would of been the only opportunity to provide serious information relevant to the 'investigation' at hand.

Did DiDomizio intentionally pretend not to understand what was set out before her in English? If her role was to review the details, then how was it possible to ignore the ECO on the grounds she quoted? It was the ECO who received the original reports and had presented them to the Legislative Assembly. It was the ECO who could provide all the details as to the severity and implications of any attempt to alter reports placed on record. All of this seemed to escape the purview of DiDomizio's investigative abilities. Yet there was more to come.

DiDomizio states “we have previously reviewed concerns that you have raised in connection with the subject property and the MOE.” A statement that is now on official record and one that intentionally presents an image of the complainant as vexatious. All the evidence and material provided was ignored and the Office of the Ombudsman had become a parrot presenting a new lie by MOE.

We in Ontario have no protection in reality against those elected. Andre Marin (appointed Ombudsman 2005 – present) may brag about his awards such as the one from the Ontario's Bar Association, he may brag about the special investigative powers such as SORT and OMLET, but he has no real authority. In his 2009 annual report, Marin emphasized the importance of oversight and accountability, yet he has no power to ensure that where it really matters. The elected representatives of our government still do as they please with complete impunity of the law.

Ontario Ombudsman file number #187333 proves that even with an annual budget of 10.75 million dollars, a staff of 80 plus, the Ombudsman Act in hand and special teams of investigators such as SORT and OMLET, Ontario's Watchdog is simply a toothless hound.

On Friday the 14^th of September 2012 a second letter was received from Mr. Peter Lapp, Director of Operations Environmental Commissioner of Ontario. For the second time Mr. Lapp states “...you have also forwarded your concerns to the Ombudsman. The ECO will cooperate in every way with any request from the Ombudsman.” Once again the ECO makes it clear that they were expecting to provide information in this extremely serious breach of legislation by the Ministry of Environment.

DiDomizio must be investigated as to her handling of this investigation. She lied in her report not only in relation to the original complaint presented to the Office of the Ombudsman but she also repeated a new lie by Director Lisa Feldman of the MOE and therefore Minister Jim Bradley. DiDomizio intentionally ignored the details requesting that she contact the ECO and covered that up with a lie. Testimony by the ECO would prove the breach of legislation against Lisa Feldman, the Ministry of the Environment and Minister Jim Bradley. DiDomizio intentionally avoided this potentially damaging testimony and the question lingers as to why.

Has Minister Jim Bradley used a representative of the Office of the Ombudsman to further cover up his breach of legislation? Has Minister Jim Bradley used Maggie DiDomizio, Early Resolution Officer at the Office of the Ombudsman to place on record aspersions upon the credibility of the complainant labelling the complainant as vexatious? DiDomizio with her report on Ombudsman file #187333 dated August 27^th 2012 has slandered the complainant, she has perpetuated the lie by Director Lisa Feldman of the MOE made at the request of Minister Jim Bradley and intentionally avoided crucial testimony that would of been provided by the ECO.

Andre Marin is responsible for the actions of all his staff. This investigation must be reopened and conducted by an impartial experienced investigator. Maggie DiDomizio has to face a full internal investigation and her report struck from record. A full public apology is required to be provided to the original complainant. The Ombudsman may not have any authority to investigate corruption within our government or its ministers but he can take action against Director's Feldman and Bardswick and the ministry. Clear evidence has been provided of lies and breach of legislation, additional evidence is willingly awaiting. It is time for Andre Marin to yank the chain on Ontario's Watchdog, put its dentures in and take a bite.

Send comments to demtruth@gmail.com 

RECALL, RECALL, RECALL – no not the movie

Should we the people have some form of accountability from those we elect to govern us, or do we have to wait till the next election as our only recourse? According to Sun Media columnist Brian MacLeod the answer is “All you need is an electorate who, from time to time, wakes up and pays attention.” MacLeod wrote a column titled 'Recalls rarely achieve intended goal' and it was published in The Standard August 23^rd 2012. Almost half of this column is spent on criticism of the US and their style of politics, even Arnold Schwarzenegger is mentioned. Then the question is raised, “Now, hands up all those who believe the US has better governance than Canada.”

As always we will jump up on our pedestals here and point fingers at the US style of governance in comparison to Canadian. Yet in the US a State Governor faced hand cuffs and jail whilst here in Canada an individual no longer in public office can admit to receiving brown paper envelopes stuffed with cash and walk away from any consequence. Maybe it's not the US style of governance that should be compared but the fact that accountability does exist there. How much of it exists in Canada?

MacLeod in his column says, “It's almost always about two things – politics and money.” Truer words have never been spoken, but who's money is the real question. Millions of tax payer dollars were spent on an enquiry that made an attempt to dig up the truth. The result was as expected and the head of the enquiry publicly stated that his hands were tied by the parameters set for the scope of the enquiry. Why was that so?

What avenues do we the people have in Canada when an elected public official is proven to have committed irregularities? Is the only recourse left to us in Canada to wait for a sinking popularity for the next election before we can “yank a politicians chain.” After all if that's all we have then the politician walks away with a healthy pension paid with our tax dollars and a huge grin on his face. Now that's true governance Canadian style, eh.

It is not the tough or unpopular decisions that we want to stop they are necessary at times and it is not possible to please all in the community. What we need is some kind of mechanism that holds politicians accountable and enforces consequences. Everyone knows how politicians change during the elections, the promises made and deals formulated in exchange for voter support. What happens after the election?

In Ontario we have the Parliamentary Integrity Commissioner, well at least an individual holds that title and is paid with our tax dollars. The title makes one think that he as an independent body overseas issues regarding members of the provincial parliament. How wrong anyone can be.

Minister Jim Bradley currently holds the position as Minister of Environment in the McGuinty government. A 35 year veteran of politics touted for his incredible record of public service. This same Minister Jim Bradley protected a political pal from any consequence as that pal bent and butchered the law. Still that was not enough, Jim Bradley then gives his pal Mayor Brian McMullan of St. Catharines a contribution for his municipal re-election campaign. True there are times we forget that our elected representatives are also Canadian citizens and therefore have the same rights as we all do. In this situation Minister Jim Bradley clearly protected Mayor McMullan from investigation and any consequences for breaches of the Municipal Act and more, to have made a financial contribution to his re-election campaign was simply a sign of arrogance by Jim Bradley.

So now let's look elsewhere, anywhere that the public may take a grievance to. We now stand at the doors of the Ombudsman of Ontario. On the wall as one first exits the elevators it states “ONTARIO'S WATCH DOG.” Beg to differ on that boast, it is only a dog with dentures.

Back once again to Minister Jim Bradley, Ontario's hero of public service. As the Environment Minister Jim Bradley instructed two individual directors of the ministry to lie regarding official reports submitted by the ministry into record. The instructions to these directors had in fact been proven and documented. Our Environmental Bill of Rights shattered and official reports that were submitted to the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, who in turn submitted them in his annual report to the legislature, now tampered and altered. All the material and hard evidence provided to the Office of the Ombudsman, as it is within the jurisdictional authority of the Ombudsman to investigate provincial issues. In all fairness there has been no response as yet from the Ombudsman though little faith is held for an outcome that will enforce any consequences on Minister Jim Bradley.

The same Ombudsman had been provided direct evidence of the most senior public health official in the Niagara Region to have intentionally lied regarding a potential public health issue. Mind you the Ombudsman would normally not have jurisdictional authority to investigate municipal issues but in the case of the Niagara Region the province had taken authority over the Niagara Health System and appointed a provincial supervisor at its head. Niagara suffered heavily through the C.difficile outbreak with over three dozen deaths before the McGuinty government took action and in effect took control of the NHS, making it for the time being a provincially controlled body. Our Ombudsman, stated that since Dr. Valerie Jaeger MD, PhD., was a public official from the regional municipality of Niagara the Ombudsman had no authority to investigate. Mind you Dr. Jaeger MD, PhD., is also a practising family physician in St. Catharines governed under the rules of the NHS.

Moving on to our municipal government, after all it was Sudbury Mayor Marianne Matichuk who inspired Brian McLeod and his article. Who in fact oversees the municipalities? Does anyone in fact provide any protection to the people against mayors and city councillors? Mayor Matichuk had made a request of Municipal Affairs Minister Kathleen Wynne “to press for recall legislation in Ontario.” Brian MacLeod in his immense wisdom and knowledge had this to say, “Wynne would do well to smile and nod at the suggestion, then move on to more pressing issues.” Someone should tell MacLeod that this is all that ministers of the provincial Liberals do at all times without his advice.

In the city of St. Catharines its mayor decides that he can do as he pleases with the law and fixes a by-law fine after it was issued to an individual. One of his own city councillors for the Merritton Ward Jennie Stevens leaves an answering machine message to the individual who had the by-law infringement. The message states that Mayor Brian McMullan had taken care of the ticket and he did not have to pay for it. Under the Municipal Act no mayor has the legal authority to interfere with by-law fines once issued. This was breach of the Municipal Act and perjury of oath of office.

All the information including a copy of the message left by Councillor Jennie Stevens was sent to the Minister for Municipal Affairs, at that time it was Jim Bradley. St. Catharines is Minister Jim Bradley's riding and Mayor Brian McMullan is his personal friend. Minister Jim Bradley sheltered his pal from any consequence, and in his arrogance provided a cash contribution to Brian McMullan's re-election campaign.

This has not been the end of the transgressions of St. Catharines Mayor Brian McMullan. In an odd situation a Niagara Regional Councillor became the target of anonymous accusations. These accusations were sent to the local press, through the internet and reached senior staff at Niagara Region. The anonymous accusers even sent a false complaint to the Niagara Regional Police which is in breach of the Criminal Code. Regional Councillor Andrew Petrowski and his family had to survive this onslaught in public. Mayor Brian McMullan who sits on Regional Council called for Councillor Petrowski to resign on the basis of the anonymous accusations that had been proven to be false and malicious. Mayor Brian McMullan took things much further by making a public statement in the press admitting to have knowledge of the identity of the anonymous accusers. In fact Mayor McMullan admitted to complicity to a breach of the criminal code. Nothing was done, no questions asked of Mayor McMullan and the matter was left to die.

Arrogance by our elected representatives is not uncommon. Each holds his or her hat in their hands when an election times roll around and quickly forgetting everything once elected. True there are times for hard and tough decisions making it impossible to please everyone in the community. Yet in Ontario we have no protection at all against the intentional transgressions of those we elect. Do not bring up the Integrity Commissioner, the Ombudsman, the Environmental Commissioner nor the Auditor General. Each is a pseudo-government watchdog that barks when it suits them and drops its false teeth in a jar.

So what are we left with in the end. Are we to simply shut up and bare it till the next election? According to the brilliance of Brian MacLeod that is all. Another brilliant representative of Sun Media wisdom Jim Hendry had this to say in relation to Toronto Mayor Rob Ford who faces the Municipal Conflict of Interest Act. “Ford didn't and should have his knuckles rapped. But the Conflict of Interest Act doesn't provide for small punishment, and no mayor should be turfed for $3150 worth of arrogance.” (Point of view: Toronto mayor's stupidity could be his salvation. The Standard, August 30^th 2012, by Jim Hendry). According to Sun Media we now have a dollar value on the need for consequence by our elected representatives when caught breaking the law. Shall we transfer such an attitude when applying the Criminal Code? But then it did happen that way in St. Catharines with another mayor, Mayor Brian McMullan.

When is it simply enough?

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com 

PUSSY RIOT Censored by Disappropriate Justice

The key ingredient of democracy is the freedom of expression and of speech though a degree of restraint is of value to avoid the heavy hand of authority freely expressing itself. Humanity's struggle for freedom has peppered the history of all nations, some had to face violence to achieve their freedom, others with far less sacrifice. Yet Russia in its long history has never known true freedom, and the fall of the Soviet Union did nothing more than provide democracy with a threatening noose around its neck.

Czarist Russia kept the masses uneducated and obedient whilst the chosen few enjoyed immense wealth and power. Russia's Orthodox Church did not object to being a willing partner ensuring that the populace remained obedient and superstitious. In the end anger brought about a demand for equality and the Russian people through uncontrollable violent struggle exchanged Czarist oppression for Soviet suppression. Regardless of who was the supreme leader whether it was Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushehev or Brezhnev the Orthodox Church suffered persecution and was forced to recognize the Soviet regime as the ultimate power over the church.

Russia and its people survived the Revolution, Civil War and the Second World War and little fight was left in them as they became human fodder for the Soviet power machine. The promise of equality never was realized under the iron hand of a new era of government. Under Mikhail Gorbachev and Glasnost the Soviet Union found a softer face and new political and social freedoms. This brought about an eventual end of the Soviet rule with promises of a new Russia, democratic and free. This fantasy did not last long.

Under Vladimir Putin Russia faces no less of an iron fist, only this time the disguise is democracy not communism for a face. Putin has to deal with public protests and open opposition something the old Soviet leaders destroyed. He must find a way to discourage such open opposition and still remain acceptable by world leaders, hence once again the use of the puppet – the Russian Orthodox Church. Pussy Riot played a bluff with the Putin power machine and the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was only a stage. Was it always the intention of these political activists to fail and face the corrupt judiciary? A legitimate question that has not been answered, though the statement by Pussy Riot band member Yekaterina Samutsevich appears to point to the affirmative.

Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova only lasted less than a minute in the Cathedral before being led out by security. Their arrest came days after the event and only after a cry of blasphemy had been engineered across the country. The judge at the trial called their act as being offensive to Orthodox believers and the church. Nothing of the anti-government stance by Pussy Riot was publicly recognized by the judge only the fact that they had offended the church. In a fashion the apparent guilt of the Russian people of surrendering their faith during the Soviet years has now been manipulated in this public condemnation of these three young women. Black scarfed old women clamoring at the prison gates demanding severe punishment against these unbelievers is not so much of a satirical vision.

Putin has been successful and the voice of democracy seems to have been intimidated, but has it. Today Russia is in a new era and the modern world has brought with it new weapons to the struggle. Eduction, travel and the internet have provided a broader base for the anti-government movement. At its head Alexey Navalny who has shown no fear of Putin and has seen the wrath of a power hungry individual willing to manipulate everything to stay in position. Navalny has bought attention to corruption in the main Russian political party, United Russia, calling its members “crooks and thieves.” Alexei shared a prison with other activists for 15 days for “defying a government official,” after a protest in December 2011. Then again in May 2012, Navalny was sentenced to another 15 days jail after another anti-Putin rally. Alexei Venediktov has said that “jailing Navalny transforms him from an online leader into an offline one.” 

Russian political tactics have been the same for centuries. Fear and intimidation used as weapons against any protests. Today Russia faces world scrutiny which it cannot afford to have swing against it and the anti-Putin protesters are more courageous due to that fact. If Alexei Navalny who organized protesters in the thousands against Putin was jailed twice for 15 days, how is it that the three young women of Pussy Riot found such a harsh sentence?

There is no doubt that the actions of Pussy Riot were offensive. One may question their decision to perform a protest at a place of extreme reverence such as the Cathedral, still the resulting punishment seems outrageous. Like the jailing of Alexei Navalny, the sentencing of Maria Alyokhina, Yekaterina Samutsevich and Nadezhda Tolokonnikova will only make them public martyrs to the anti-Putin cause. Public outcry has come from around the world in defence of Pussy Riot members, and the three women now are world-famous for their 'courage'. Still those outside Russia raising their voices against the heavy hand seen in the Russian courts have some serious issues of credibility. In an article titled, 'The west's hypocrisy over Pussy Riot is breathtaking' for the guardian.co.uk, Simon Jenkin states “Anyone in England and Wales with a dog out of control can now be jailed for six months. If the dog causes injury, the maximum term is to be two years.” He spoke of a London court jailing a young man Charlie Gilmour to 18 months “after he swung on a union flag from the Cenotaph and tossed a bin at a police car.” Simon Jenkins does not defend these individuals nor the British courts.

In America human rights activists and Madonna condemned the Pussy Riot jail terms as disproportionate. Simon Jenkins reports “a US military court declared that reporting the Guantanamo Bay trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed would be censored. Any mention of his torture in prison was banned as “reasonably expected to damage national security.” This has no apparent connection to proportionate punishment or freedom of speech.” (Simon Jenkins, guardian.co.uk, August 21^st 2012)

True the actions of Pussy Riot would hardly seem to justify such a sentence. Reading the closing statement of Yekaterina Samutsevich it becomes clear that the motivation behind their actions had nothing to do with anti-Orthodox sentiment, the women of Pussy Riot were there to make a loud anti-Putin protest. Understanding Russia's history and the attitudes of the Russian people then it is not hard to understand the final outcome. Vladimir Putin has played musical chairs with Dmitry Medvedev to continue his hold on power even after his two-term limit in 2008 ended. No amount of protest outside of Russia will make any difference as long as Putin is able to convince Russians, in particular outside of the large cities, that this had to be done. The women of Pussy Riot are simply pawns in a game that has one prize at the end.

Send comments to: demtruth@gmail.com