“POLITICIANS CAN NEVER RESIST THE URGE TO TURN A MESSY LEGAL CASE INTO A CHEAP POLITICAL PROP” This refers specifically to DOUG FORD and PIERRE POILIEVRE. But then, the lack of knowledge of the facts never restrains their political proclamations. Michael Spratt explains:

“Ford wasted no time calling the justice system “broken,” thundering that, “You should be able to protect your family when someone’s going in there to harm your family and your kids.” Poilievre chimed in with his tough-on-crime poetry, demanding clarity in the law. Kevin Vuong, a former Conservative member of parliament, solemnly declared that people should be allowed to use “reasonable force” to defend themselves.

How do we know this outrage is performative grievance and not genuine concern? Because the law already does precisely what they claim it doesn’t. And here’s the kicker: Poilievre should know this better than anyone. The Conservatives rewrote the self-defence provisions in 2012. Poilievre voted for them. Now he’s out pretending that the law he championed is some sinister Liberal plot against homeowners. That takes an Olympic-level memory lapse or a strong commitment to gaslighting.

Undermining the public’s understanding of the law, stoking unnecessary fear, and floating castle laws for a few cheap political points do more than distort reality. They corrode trust in the justice system, leave people confused about their rights, and feed the false belief that Canadians are helpless against crime. That may be good politics for Ford and Poilievre, but it is spinless and reckless leadership.”

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/news/opinion/castle-laws-wont-fix-what-ford-and-poilievre-claim-is-broken-in-self-defence-rules/393014?fbclid=IwY2xjawMpN5BleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicmlkETE4azFmRFk0VFlXZjlPSml0AR6KV6zGT1HcQuwIPIcD0TfVaF0XOz9I97jmeavWI0Kj0-F6dX9MevHEEXsYhg_aem_6EFz9v4DhZBVGakGYYvNvw

THE DIRTY TRICK OF SPEED CAMERAS – It’s about making common conduct an offence for money. Their real purpose is to raise revenue and not to increase safety. The fact is that posted speed limits are not calibrated to the speed of the flow of traffic and are not intended to be strictly enforced. Travelling at or below the speed limit is usually, in practical terms, dangerous. (Try it some time.) Speed camera thresholds do not accommodate reality.

THIS APPLIES EQUALLY TO DANIELLE SMITH AND PIERRE POILIEVRE AS IT DOES TO DOUG FORD

Opinion | Doug Ford either doesn’t know what self defence means — or he doesn’t care

Aug. 28, 2025

2 min read

Premier Doug Ford has undermined the police for applying the law to the facts as they came to understand them through their investigation, Reid Rusonik writes.

Carlos Osorio The Canadian Press

By Reid Rusonik, Contributor

Reid Rusonik is a defence lawyer practicing in Toronto 

So Premier Doug Ford has had enough with the law against excessive force in self defence, has he?

He believes the Lindsay man facing charges of aggravated assault and assault with a weapon after an intruder broke into his home should not have been charged for his having “(given) him (the intruder) a beating.” People are done” with criminals being treated leniently and leaving punishment up to “some bleeding heart judge,” Ford has said.

‘Something is broken’: Doug Ford speaks out on charges laid against Lindsay resident after intruder allegedly assaulted

With his comments, Ford has indirectly undermined the police for laying the charges — for applying the law to the facts as they came to understand them through their investigation.

In doing that, he not only undermines his supposed ‘tough on crime’ agenda — something he has already done by grossly underfunding the criminal justice system — he demonstrates either a shocking ignorance of the law or a contempt of it.

The reality in Canada is that you can defend yourself in your home. You can use force. You can even do so with weapons, including knives and legally possessed firearms. We already have a ‘Castle Law’.

What you cannot do is use excessive force to defend your home, although the law is pretty lenient in that regard by not requiring the person defending themselves to measure the force they employ “to a legal nicety.” The only thing the law will not tolerate is excessive violence on the part of the homeowner, where their actions move from self-defence and defence of home to gratuitous punishment.

At this point, no one other than the intruder and the accused and the police know what force the accused employed here, although the charges suggest he used something like a knife and that he wounded the intruder and that he did so in a manner that, beyond any legal nicety, was gratuitous. Ford did not know the facts when he made his comments, nor should he have, nor should anyone else until the police provide their investigation to the Crown and the Crown to the accused’s lawyer.

The only thing Ford knew was that he did not know the facts, but that apparently did nothing to stop him from trying to make cheap political points with a base either equally unaware of the law or equally in contempt of it.

As for his attack on the judiciary, what Ford does know is that the bench must either be full of his kind of judges and justices of the peace — his government has been appointing them for the last seven years — or he does not believe his criticisms of the judiciary are well-founded.

All of his remarks in regard to this case are those of the worst kind of political opportunist and of the poorest kind of leader for a constitutional democracy.

Free societies guaranteed by constitutional democracy are not easy because society is not easy. The rule of law is the only thing that makes them possible. Leading them is a job for honest, thoughtful, intelligent people who know the law and wait for and act on the facts, regardless of how unpopular that may be for a time, and regardless of the chance to score cheap political points.

What’s next for Ford? Calling for the police and members of the public to be allowed to use excessive force to make arrests? A little “street justice?” That would mark the end of our society in anything but name.

Ford might consider instead looking at the damage his cuts to education, addiction treatment and other social programs have done in leading people to untreated drug addiction, far and away the number one cause of break and enters and the most common characteristic of the perpetrators of the crime.

HELP ME OUT HERE. Does it make sense to allow a stranger to eTransfer themselves money from your bank account in exchange for cash? I don’t get it. According to The Star:

Toronto residents are being targeted with an e-transfer scam near malls. Here’s how to protect yourself
Toronto investigators are probing “several” incidents of the scam, a police spokesperson told the Star.

Aug. 26, 2025

Officers are urging people to always keep hold of their phones while sending an e-transfer to someone they don’t know.
By Elissa MendesStaff Reporter

Torontonians should be on the lookout for an e-transfer scam near local malls, investigators warned Tuesday.
In the scam, an individual targets victims near public spaces and ask them to e-transfer the individual $10 or $20 in exchange for cash, investigators said in a news release.
But when the victim provides their cellphone to the person with their banking app open, the suspect inputs their email address and sends themselves upwards of $3,000 from the victim’s account.
The suspect then hands back the victim’s phone and flees, police said.
Toronto investigators are probing “several” incidents of the scam, with more reports coming in, a police spokesperson told the Star.
Officers are urging people to always keep hold of their phones while sending an e-transfer to someone they don’t know, and to never allow strangers to access to their online banking information.

AFTER TAKING YEARS AND FINALLY WORKING OUT WHAT INFORMATION THE POLICE CAN DISCLOSE TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT YOU IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL RECORDS ACT, DOUG FORD AGAIN SHOWS THAT HE HAS NO RESPECT FOR THE LAW. I’m with the police on this one.

As reported by The Star:Eight months after the Ford government imposed deeper background checks for people who work with vulnerable children, some police forces across the province are refusing to issue them, saying the changes raise privacy concerns and may contradict existing laws.The new requirement is also causing widespread confusion at child welfare agencies and organizations that provide services to children and youth, including group homes and foster care providers.The law now requires anyone working with kids under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act to obtain a broad record check — a more extensive background search than previously mandated. Under the new check, law enforcement agencies must disclose “every contact between the person and a police service for which there is a written record,” which could include mental health crisis calls and non-criminal police encounters, such as noise complaints or 911 calls by victims of domestic violence.The Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police, which represents the province’s police leaders, was not consulted on the changes before they came into force, a spokesperson told the Star. José Luís Couto said police services have had concerns with how the new provisions may be in conflict with federal legislation, including the Criminal Records Act.Under the updated legislation, all interactions with police must be disclosed unless the information is “not relevant to the person’s suitability to perform caregiving duties for a child” — a clause that leaves it up to individual police forces to decide what information to release, leaving room for inconsistent interpretation across the province.

SPEED CAMERAS -the resistance is great. They’re not working to slow down drivers because the speed camera zones are not clearly marked. If they are to work then they have to be signed/labeled/marked very visibly big and bright because when a driver knows that they’ll get a speeding ticket, they’ll slow down.

From The Star, August 18, 2025
In Vaughan, after thousands of tickets were issued and countless complaints followed, the city decided to pause its speed-camera program. In Brampton, there was a 5,000-plus-person petition to shut the devices down and stop using them. A Toronto councillor tried to make a motion to do something similar in the city, decrying them as speed traps.
And the cameras themselves are taking a beating. In Guelph, two speed cameras were knocked over in the past week. Earlier this spring, nine cameras were defaced in Vaughan, including some on hydro poles that required 50-foot ladders to reach. (One man was arrested, and police are still looking for others.) In late May, a speed camera was stolen in Paris, Ont.
The complaints about speed cameras are legion: They’re not visible enough; the speed limits they’re enforcing aren’t fair; they don’t work; they don’t get results.
In Vaughan, the speed camera program was paused shortly after it was launched because more than 32,000 tickets were issued to drivers in just three weeks, (from one single camera) which was a shock to everyone.

“BELIEVE THE VICTIM” – discloses a legal and logical fallacy. In law, a “victim” is not a victim unless and until the crime has been proven in a court of law. Rosie DiManno of The Star has commented upon the Hockey Canada case as follows:

“She (Justice Carroccia) cut to the tortured heart of the matter. “Although the slogan ‘believe the victim’ has become popularized of late, it has no place in a criminal trial. To approach a trial with the assumption that the complainant is telling the truth is the equivalent of imposing a presumption of guilt on the person accused of sexual assault and then placing the burden on him to prove his innocence. That is antithetical to the fundamental principles of justice enshrined in our Constitution and the values underlying our free and democratic society. … The approach, in fact, is infantilizing women.”

One has to wonder why this case was prosecuted. “Lead Crown Attorney Meaghan Cunningham, chair of the province’s sexual violence advisory group, had warned E.M. that, while she believed the test to prosecute had been met — that E.M. was incapable of giving consent under the circumstances — it was “not a really, really strong case.”

In the end, Cunningham’s caution was on the nose. And E.M. is the loser.

But as she prepares for her upcoming wedding, to the same boyfriend she cuckolded back then, E.M. is also a much richer woman. The verdict doesn’t matter. She doesn’t have to give the money back.”