Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Bryant "grandstanding" again

seeker
April 11th, 2005, 06:50 PM
Bryant today announced that he was sending a team to lobby for the federal parole board to ensure they impose strick guidelines in regard to Carla Homolka's release . Things like making sure she has to inform authorites if she moves and other certain other restrictions .
I should think that Bryant as the "attorney general" of ontario should be aware that everything he is asking for are normal parole requirments .
In a time when the words "good and liberal" cannot be used in the same paragraph in Canada let alone Ontario .Here he goes again trying to convince the people of Ontario that he is a "man of action" and is going to ensure their safety . At the same time driveby shootings, home invasions, domestic violence and street gangs are fast becoming the rule not the exception in the province .
I was pretty much convinced that once the pitbulls were banned all would be well with the world . Thanks Mike for taking such good care of us , you reptile.

babyrocky1
April 11th, 2005, 06:54 PM
His love of cheap exploitation knows no bounds!!!!! Sickening!!!

SnowDancer
April 11th, 2005, 06:57 PM
He has developed exactly as expected.

twodogsandacat
April 11th, 2005, 07:36 PM
Of course it is grandstanding and nothing else. Bryant is a lazy jerk and the local Liberal in St. Catharines is as well.

When the St. Catharines Standard reported that the publication ban regarding this case was openly being violated the Attorney Generals Office told them to call the police. The Standard suggested instead that the AG’s office just contact the violators and ask them to take the site down. Apparently there was evidence that this had worked before. I backed up the Standard’s editorial with mine and suggested that Jim Bradley (the local MPP) approach Michael Bryant personally – they sit twenty feet apart. An email with a link to the editorial was also sent to Jim Bradley.

I asked again in a follow up email. Then when the Standard was ready to print another follow-up editorial (they allow one a month) I suggested that I contact Jim one more time as this issue (Homolka\Bernardo) is not the issue I wished to bury the Liberal’s on in St. Catharines – there would be enough. .

After that final email Jim Bradley responded “As you have requested, I have conveyed your suggestion to the Attorney General, The Honourable Michael Bryant.”

I updated the Standard and asked them not to print that editorial. Hours later the email from the AG’s office came…that Liberal who is also the minister of recreation couldn’t get off his butt and walk the twenty feet. He had forwarded the final email. If he had copied the editorial – it had the address information th AG’s office wanted and I never would of known how lazy this man was. I did not contact them as their position was already known. They would of simply told me to call the police. As I did not know the location of the banned documents or the juristricion that the documents resided in what could I do?

Below is the final day’s exchange of emails….

> -----Original Message-----
> From: XXXXXXXXXXXX]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:26 PM
> To: Bradley_James-MPP-CO
> Subject: Date Correction: Violation of the Homolka and Bernardo
> publication ban

I sent an email on February 12 and again on February 21 asking that Jim Bradley approach Michael Bryant personally regarding the issue of the violations of the publication ban in respect to Paul Bernardo and Karla Homokla. I simply asked that Michael Bryant instruct his office to take ownership of this issue, as the Editor of the St. Catharine's Standard had also suggested.

I am now requesting for a second time confirmation that this has been done and that we can rest assured that the office of the Attorney General is now acting on the information provided to them. As before please do not reply that my concerns have been passed on to Jim Bradley as I am looking for confirmation that this has been done and of course nothing less will be acceptable. There can be no doubt that it is the correct thing to do, would require very little effort and should have been done immediately
after the Standard first proposed the solution. For the last time, has this been done?

XXXX XXXXXX

From: "Bradley_James-MPP-CO" <jbradley.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org>
Date: 2005/03/10 Thu AM 09:03:19 EST
To: <XXXXXXX>
> Subject: RE: Date Correction: Violation of the Homolka and Bernardo publication ban
>
> Dear Mr. XXXXX:
>
> I am writing to acknowledge receipt of your emails regarding the issue of publication ban violations with relation to the Bernardo and Homolka cases.
>
> As you have requested, I have conveyed your suggestion to the Attorney General, The Honourable Michael Bryant.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> Jim Bradley, MPP
> St. Catharines
>

AND THEN THIS CAME IN


> From: "JUS-G-MAG-Webmaster" <AttorneyGeneral@jus.gov.on.ca>
> Date: 2005/03/10 Thu AM 11:08:51 EST
> To: <XXXXXXX>
> Subject: Attorney General - Request for Postal Address
>
> Dear Mr. XXXX:
>
> Thank you for your e-mail of March 9, 2005 , which was referred to the Ministry of the
> Attorney General by MPP Jim Bradley (St. Catherines). As some address information was missing from your
> message, our unit has been asked to follow up with you.
>
> We require your full postal address since this ministry generally answers
> its incoming correspondence by postal mail. If you could provide this
> information by return e-mail, our unit will ensure that it is attached to
> your earlier message for response.
>
> Alternatively, if you would prefer not to provide your postal address over
> the internet, you may wish to mail a letter instead to the Ministry of the
> Attorney General. As mentioned above, please include your return postal
> address in your correspondence so that the ministry can respond directly to
> you.
>
> Postal correspondence should be directed to:
> The Honourable Michael J. Bryant
> Attorney General of Ontario
> 720 Bay Street, 11th Floor
> Toronto, ON
> M5G 2K1
>
> We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.
>
> Regards,
>
> JUS-G-MAG-Webmaster
> Ministry of the Attorney General

seeker
April 11th, 2005, 08:12 PM
It looks to me that if they put as much effort into looking after the violation as they put into emailing back and forth in order to not have to actually do something . The problem would have been solved right away . It is typical government action that "a lot of paper shuffling makes people think your doing your job but prevents you from actually having to do anything" and if we delay long enough it will be the next governments problem.

twodogsandacat
April 11th, 2005, 08:47 PM
Well in 2007 if this local liberal has a question and answer session anywhere that I can attend I'll be asking him why he did nothing to assist in the removal of those websites as the St. Catharines Standard asked the AG to do.

I'll also ask why the Minister of Recreation is incapable of walking twenty feet.

The answer of course is: There was no photo op.

This is the original editorial:

************************************************

Letters to the Editor - Friday, February 11, 2005 @ 01:00

To quote The Standard’s Feb. 9 editorial on the violation of publication ban connected with the trial of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka: “If all it takes is for the province to formally ask that those details be removed from public view, we call upon the Ministry of the Attorney General to do so immediately.” Well said.

Attorney General Michael Bryant himself should personally see that it is done. Bryant has no problem seeking out stories that have high press coverage to get his name and photo in print. That included recent comments regarding Karla Homolka’s release.

To hear a spokesman indicate that the press should contact the police is ludicrous. The information has been provided to the attorney general’s office and they need to act on it as you said — immediately.

Bryant immediately made a statement when the news of Homolka’s upcoming parole was announced. He took the opportunity to capitalize on that story of national interest.

“We will look at every legal avenue available to protect the public before she is released,” he said.

That included petitioning the court for authority under the Criminal Code that would allow authorities to restrict Homolka’s movement when she is released. An article was published just last week which indicated that those efforts may come too late to have any bearing on the Homolka case. Bryant missed that opportunity, but of course not the associated photo-op.

The information regarding the websites has now been provided to his office. There may not be any opportunity to get his photo in the paper, but it is time for action. We are looking for results or we will be contacting the office of local Liberal Jim Bradley to ask him why issues important to his riding are only important enough for discussion when there is a Liberal photo opportunity involved. Stop chasing headlines and start chasing those openly breaking the law.

seeker
April 11th, 2005, 09:04 PM
Well said .
They are right about how this guy only does the "right" thing when there is a "photo opportunity".

babyrocky1
April 11th, 2005, 09:44 PM
Its interesting that he now has trouble with the legitimacey of Emails. He most certainly cherished each of the 6000 that he got in support of his well thought out bill 132. Each time I telephoned either his constituancy office or the legislative office they suggesed I Email him.
Are you going to try and correspond with a member of his "ministry" by post. We will be waiting anxiosly for his brilliant reply. ha Besides, if you send it by snail mail he may then wish only to be contacted by carrier pigeon. :D Im glad to see your not letting up on him, the local liveral must really appreciate your suport as well :evil:

twodogsandacat
April 11th, 2005, 10:03 PM
Well I did promise him that I would always try to get his name in my editorials that criticize the Liberal government. In my last editorial his name was removed to bring it down to a printable size. I would of preferred they omitted my name but there is always next time.

Lizzie
April 12th, 2005, 07:42 AM
As much as I despise the Liberals, the legal action they are asking for goes beyond normal parole guidelines. There was a big four page article on it in Macleans a while back (i wish I could find it for you) which explained that if Ontario didn't take this action that the Quebec governmnet would. It has only been used once before for a male sex criminal, and never for a woman.

twodogsandacat
April 12th, 2005, 08:43 AM
My point was that the opportunity was almost lost (and still may be) because Bryant wasn’t too concerned until the media became involved.

As for Bryant’s office and the local Liberal they don’t seem too concerned that there are open violations regarding the publication ban of the Bernardo and Homolka case. When contacted by the Standard they said ‘call the police’. What police? The local, the police in the jurisdictions where the sites are hosted, each police department in each location? How hard does the average citizen have to work to report a crime?

The information was given to the Attorney Generals Office and they refused to act on it. The request of the Standard was simple. As in previous cases they suggested a simple contact form the Attorney General’s office informing them that they were in violation of the ban, could they please remove the offending material. A simple request that they refused to act on as there was of course no media attention – just a small town paper making the request. A paper in the city where the crimes were committed.

Stick a camera in front of him and Bryant would probably make the call on his cell phone. What is right is right. The presence of a camera shouldn’t have anything to do with it.

Schwinn
April 12th, 2005, 01:53 PM
I was going to say something sooner, but I wasn't able to confirm it until today. You want proof this is a photo-op? She's being released for a prison in Quebec, and she is thinking of moving to another province (Saskatcewan, I believe. Or some place that sounds like that, but spelled right). So now, we're going to pay for this jerk to fly to another province and live it up in some hotel to fight for some issue that doesn't affect us? (Not saying that something shouldn't be done, but his job is to take care of Ontario issues). It's like this guy is permanently working on the Penske file (Seinfeld reference)

babyrocky1
April 12th, 2005, 02:04 PM
Id pay for him to fly to another province, a one way ticket though ;)

Lizzie
April 12th, 2005, 07:23 PM
She was convicted in Ontario so the Ontario government has to go first to get the legal matters done. That's why they are doing it. Like I said, otherwise the second avenue is for the province in which she was incarcerated.

seeker
April 12th, 2005, 09:03 PM
As much as I despise the Liberals, the legal action they are asking for goes beyond normal parole guidelines. There was a big four page article on it in Macleans a while back (i wish I could find it for you) which explained that if Ontario didn't take this action that the Quebec governmnet would. It has only been used once before for a male sex criminal, and never for a woman.


I guess that slipped by me . However what he is doing means very little if like Schwinn said she has no plans to move to Ontario .
He is still grandstanding as that is all he knows .Once Homolka moves out west and the papers forget about her so will Bryant .
I bet Him and Fantino will come up with some excuse for a curfew before this summer is over instead of offering a real solution to the street violence . That would get him the headlines that he craves.

pitbulliest
April 12th, 2005, 11:33 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong..but isn't the election going to come forward alot quicker than 2007? As far as my radio told me this morning, there may be an election as early as July...

Anyone else hear this?

Lizzie
April 13th, 2005, 07:45 AM
McGuinty is in provincial government.

There may be a federal election--has nothing to do changing McGuinty's role as Premier....unfortunately.

Schwinn
April 13th, 2005, 08:40 AM
If he really wants to do something, why doesn't he go after her for the death of her sister? Then they'd be able to put her away for a lot longer. Oh, real solutions take real work? Methinks the emporer has no clothes, and he's pudgy and pasty white... :yuck:

babyrocky1
April 13th, 2005, 09:51 AM
Hey thats right, why cant they do that, neither of them were ever charged with that crime. I d love to see that woman gone for life. Well who wouldn't. Maybe with all the new DNA evidence and such.... or is that just all t.v.? Unfortunately Bryant looks good here, who can be against going after Carla, again he has found someone more evil than himself, this time really evil rather than percieved evil. It does make sense that Ontario should be involved. The guy is not just an opportunist but timing seems to be on his side for everything.

babyrocky1
April 13th, 2005, 09:58 AM
Correct me if I'm wrong..but isn't the election going to come forward alot quicker than 2007? As far as my radio told me this morning, there may be an election as early as July...

Anyone else hear this?
Unfortunately they are talking about a Federal Election. The pit bull thing is provincial. Bryant is the Provincial Attorney General and unless Dalton kicks him out, shuffles his cabinet, were stuck with him til 2007. Even if Dalton changed Bryants cabinet position they would probably not resind the law without us winning the legal challenge.

LL1
April 13th, 2005, 10:13 AM
The deal with the "devil" was negotiated under the NDP.The Tories later appointed Galligan to review it,and decided not to add any additional charges.The Liberals also now do not want to revisit that decision.I'd say none of the emperors have/had clothes.
If he really wants to do something, why doesn't he go after her for the death of her sister? Then they'd be able to put her away for a lot longer. Oh, real solutions take real work? Methinks the emporer has no clothes, and he's pudgy and pasty white... :yuck:

Schwinn
April 13th, 2005, 10:54 AM
The deal with the "devil" was negotiated under the NDP.The Tories later appointed Galligan to review it,and decided not to add any additional charges.The Liberals also now do not want to revisit that decision.I'd say none of the emperors have/had clothes.

I agree, but what bothers me is the way he is all over the TV talking about how evil she is, and something needs to be done, but he is doing nothing about the death of her sister. It seems to me to be a cheap photo-op rather than a real solution. I also haven't heard any other AGs going on, though, to be fair, that may be because I'm not in any other province. It just seems if he REALLY wanted to do something, he'd go after her for the death of her sister.

pitbulliest
April 13th, 2005, 12:25 PM
Unfortunately they are talking about a Federal Election. The pit bull thing is provincial. Bryant is the Provincial Attorney General and unless Dalton kicks him out, shuffles his cabinet, were stuck with him til 2007. Even if Dalton changed Bryants cabinet position they would probably not resind the law without us winning the legal challenge.

That's just crubby.. :( I was getting excited there for a second..this would be the perfect time to vote..when everyone knows how sh i tty the liberals are..I'm hoping that in 2007, people won't simply forget and vote liberal again..I sure as heck know I WON'T!

Loki
April 13th, 2005, 06:16 PM
Bernardo's lawyers comment on Bryant:
http://www.canada.com/hamilton/news/story.html?id=283095a9-dd69-4a20-8afa-8d3265615736

babyrocky1
April 13th, 2005, 07:23 PM
If this is the truth and Bryant can't do much legally then he really is just grandstanding, He will be able to shoot his mouth off over and over again, lots of press, going after the most evil person ever, yet knowing all along it just Lip service. Is my absolute contempt for this guy colouring the way Im reading this?

twodogsandacat
April 13th, 2005, 07:32 PM
Is my absolute contempt for this guy colouring the way Im reading this?

Nope. It's called CLARITY.

seeker
April 13th, 2005, 07:40 PM
I read in the sun today . Bryant said he will not go after her for her sisters death.
Now if it was Smitherman ,Sorbara or Mcguinty you could be sure they would be lying and next week announce that they had changed their minds because new evidence has been brought forth {meaning they think it might be popular with the voters} or in Sorbara's case some "NEW " method of accounting had been discovered and will now charge her .
Will Bryant follow the leader and say one thing and mean something else or will he stick to his word ?

twodogsandacat
April 14th, 2005, 07:08 AM
Today's Editorial from the Sun - http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/TorontoSun/Editorial/home.html Apr 14
Note the sectioned I bolded.

Karla's not the only one
When Ontario Attorney General Michael Bryant announced his plan this week to keep tabs on Karla Homolka after she's released from prison, he boasted: "This arrangement is without precedent in Canada."

And that's just the problem.

Most Canadians will applaud any legal restriction that can be placed on Homolka, who was sentenced to just 12 years after admitting to helping her husband Paul Bernardo rape and kill teenagers Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.

Indeed, most of us would rather she be kept behind bars for life, but the province's disastrous "deal with the devil" plea bargain (which also let the couple off the hook for killing Karla's sister Tammy) made that impossible.

So the best our legal system can do is force Homolka to comply with a recognizance order, and watch her as though she were on parole, even though she will have completed her full sentence as of July 5, 82 days from today.

"No matter where she goes, our justice system is going to be watching her," Bryant vowed, noting that " she may pose a risk to the public, so we want to make sure we're doing everything to protect the public upon her release."

Great. But Bryant's bluster raises an obvious and troubling question: Where was he -- and his fellow lawmakers across Canada -- when countless other dangerous murderers and/or sex criminals were being released?

How many times have they told outraged crime victims and ordinary citizens there's nothing they can do about high-risk sex offenders or violent criminals being set free -- including many who, like Karla, have refused or shown no progress in rehabilitation treatment?

How many times have they defended our absurd system that pushes convicts back into society after they've served just a fraction of their sentences -- and frequently turns a blind eye to risks and minor parole violations?

Time and again, Bryant's fellow Liberal travellers have downplayed or outright resisted even basic measures to protect the public, like a national sex offender registry. (In fact, thanks to the federal Grits' narrow definition of that new registry, Homolka won't even be included in it!)

We know Bryant is no stranger to political grandstanding on public safety -- after all, he banned pit bulls despite a mountain of evidence showing such bans don't work.

If he's sincere about protecting us from Homolka, let him show similar concern for all the lesser-known but potentially more dangerous criminals already in our midst.

babyrocky1
April 14th, 2005, 10:11 AM
That was an excellent article! thanks for the post.

Schwinn
April 14th, 2005, 10:24 AM
I think this line says it all--

''Win or lose, he would at least have shown ... he was willing to take the risk.''

He isn't. He wants face-time, that's it. Need proof that this isn't about doing what's right, but what will make him look good to the uninformed (like a pitbull ban)? How about this statement--

''It's a very low threshold to get a peace bond,'' said Paul Burstein. ''I don't think there's much doubt they'll be able to establish what they're trying to establish.''

Yes, they will establish an opportunity for this horse's heinny to get on TV and pat himself on the back. My god, if this man ever got a rotator-cuff injury, his career would be over. He only takes his head out of his butt long enough to kiss it!

Akeeter
April 18th, 2005, 11:44 PM
Sheesh, but he did get elected, didn't he. So he may have grounds for his opinion, at least in his own riding. ;)