Member since Jan 11, 2017

click to enlarge pict0434_jpg-magnum.jpg



  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Parking overhaul pitched for downtown

This increase is probably step one in a long-term plan to change up the parking meter scheme.

Increase the fines-step one. Increase the hours/days parking is in effect-step two. Increase the cost for the meter- step three.

It's exactly what Vancouver did over the last 10years. Now in Vancouver meters are in effect 9am-10pm/ 7days a week. The most expensive meters in the downtown core are $6/hr.

I don't have an issue for the changes. I think street pricing is the correct way to pay for the cost of road maintenance. I'd just like the Council to step up, do this in one step. Don't try and hide from criticism by "sneaking" these changes through piece-by-piece.

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rhett on 01/27/2017 at 10:15 AM

Re: “Questions linger over Halifax police’s street check data

Mouse, You're using the wrong definition for authoritative.

Stalin-like: having an air of authority; accustomed to exercising authority; positive; peremptory; dictatorial.

Supreme Court like- having due authority; having the sanction or weight of authority :an authoritative opinion.

I use authoritative as it binds (like a precedent) the bodies subordinate to the Supreme Court.
You seem to see that, when you mention that the Supreme Court does and can change it's opinion. But, that change can only come from that Judicial Body. (excepting an amend to the Constitution, and I can tell you, that doesn't happen very often)

We can debate, that's our prerogative. Courts, tribunals, and government bodies do not enjoy that. They must reach their decisions with certain pre-concieved notions.

When HRP steps in front of the Human Rights Commission to defend their actions, the commission must already accept that institutional racism is present. The argument starts at that common ground, it does not end there.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Rhett on 01/17/2017 at 5:17 PM

Re: “Questions linger over Halifax police’s street check data

Mouse; Ya, I think you're getting it.

But, let me clarify. Not smart people are saying institutional racism exists, authoritative people say this. Here's the difference. You, me and Methinks are smart people, but our word don't amount to much more than a hill of beans. When the Supreme Court says something... it binds the minds of the courts, human rights tribunals and governments. They end debate.

As for having to prove there is an issue; well on one side you have:
- The HRP data set showing a trend based on race based tactics
- the anecdotal statements from the black community as to their experiences
- a historical record of racial bias in the HRP
- findings by legal scholars regarding street checks. ie: Prof G. Luther, U of Sask.
- finding by social scholars regarding radicalized policing. ie: Prof E. Comack, U of Man.
- the findings of the Ontario Human Rights Commission
- the actions by the Ontario Legislature to curb the tactic of street checking
- the binding decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada


- The leadership of HRP stating that racism might be at play, we don't know.
- the assurance that street checks are doing good, but also admitting there's no evidence to support that claim

Given that the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission makes decisions on the balance of probabilities, which way do you think they would come down on this issue?

You see, Chief Blais and our leadership sit at a junction. Will the Chief accept the framework laid out by Ontario Legislature to safeguard the rights of the community. Will he lead his institution and be "ahead of the curve" regarding the tactic of street checking? Or, will he stick to his stance, and keep dragging his feet, saying he needs more info before he can make a decision?

Eventually Chief Blais will have his arse dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission and his decision will be given to him. But, not till he has been publicly dragged across the coals by the Commission for his (in the words of the Supreme Court) stupidity, complacency, or ignorance.

Quite frankly, I hope he "sticks to his guns". I love watching officials get pilloried in the town square.

0 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Rhett on 01/17/2017 at 7:12 AM

Re: “Questions linger over Halifax police’s street check data

Methinks, you've nailed it. No one IS saying "it doesn't involve racism." Doesn't that gnaw at you a bit?

The people who should be assuring us that there is NO racism or bias in police actions, (such as Chief Blais, Dep. Chief Moore, Police Board Chairman Craig and Premier McNeil) are actually saying racism might be a component to the street checks, but we don't know.

It's their duty to know if racism is at play. And if these leaders can't say with 100% confidence that they don't have a racist police tactic in use, then their duty is to stop the tactic until they can say "it doesn't involve racism."

There is no room for bad faith is the application of Human and Charter Rights where the State and the People are involved.

0 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Rhett on 01/16/2017 at 5:48 PM

Re: “Questions linger over Halifax police’s street check data

I think we can learn from the Supreme Court on how to respond to this idea that society must have irrefutable evidence of racial bias before senior leaders can take action.

A Nova Scotia Judge recognized racism saying;

"[Racism] is a pernicious reality. The issue of racism existing in Nova Scotia has been well documented in the Marshall Inquiry Report (sub. nom. Royal Commission on the Donald Marshall, Jr., Prosecution). A person would have to be stupid, complacent or ignorant not to acknowledge its presence, not only individually, but also systemically and institutionally."
Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. S.M.S. (1992), 110 N.S.R. (2d) 91(Fam. Ct.)

And this fact was affirmed and authored by LHeureux-Dube AND MCLachlin JJ. Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. S. (R.D.)[1997] 3 SCR 484

Simply put, if you want to ignore the presence of institutional racism you are either; stupid, complacent or ignorant.

I'll leave it to you to choose which descriptor is yours.

1 like, 14 dislikes
Posted by Rhett on 01/16/2017 at 1:20 PM

Re: “Street checks by Halifax police are unacceptable says privacy lawyer

LOL, Hipster, no Methinks. As for white and middle class... Well, I'll bet we both fit that bill, don't we Methinks?

Maybe us two old white guys should listen closer to the Black community before we resign them to a "stop and frisk" future in little ol' Halifax. I know I don't get stopped by the cops just for existing. I bet the marginalized people in this town would like to share in that privilege.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Rhett on 01/11/2017 at 7:34 PM

Re: “Street checks by Halifax police are unacceptable says privacy lawyer

I guess I'm not as willing to risk the liberties of members of the community as you
are, Methinks.

HPD has a history of discrimination based on race.
Data leads to suspicion that street checks by HPD is influenced by racial profiling.
Other jurisdictions that have examined the street check tactic by police have concluded there was an element of racism and bias at play.

A judicious approach by police leadership would suspend a questionable act till their evidence based research showed the cause of the disparity in police checks was not race based.

If expecting that the police take the strictest precautions with an activity that, at it's core is a degrading and humiliating experience at the hands of the police, is riding my "high horse"...

Then I say, "saddle up."

1 like, 5 dislikes
Posted by Rhett on 01/11/2017 at 3:47 PM

All Comments »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Real Time Web Analytics

© 2017 Coast Publishing Ltd.