New Rules For Entering Alberta

My boss gave me these rules that he got through the email today. I definitly agree with them. Especially all those that talk about housing in Alberta. Having lived in Edmonton and Calgary, I can relate and remember all these as perfectly true. Though I think Edmonton was the murder capital at the beginning of the year but I think we have been over taken by Regina (http://www.connect2edmonton.ca/forum/viewtopic.php?p=47740) by a hair. I would still recommend a flak jacket though.

NEW RULES FOR ENTERING ALBERTA

1. Bring your own house.

2. If you are going to the oil sands, bring your own house, school, and hospital.

3. If you are going to Edmonton, wear your flak jacket. This is the murder capital of Canada.

4. If you are driving to Edmonton, note it is also the auto theft centre of Canada.

5. If you are bringing drugs, head straight to Fort McMurray, the drug capital of Canada.

6. If you are looking for work, look no further. Minimum wage is $5.60 per hour.

7. If you work downtown, note that parking costs $5.00 per hour or more.

8. If you are able to buy a house in Edmonton, or Calgary, why not spend the money on a 15 year holiday?

9. If you drive a Hummer, look out. Alberta has the highest gas prices in Canada [The Alberta Advantage].

10. Edmonton has 5 hospitals. Ten years ago there were 7. Don't come here sick.

11. In Calgary, the population has exploded. The last road was paved 12 years ago. Calgary is a no parking zone.

12. Remember when the cowboys were winning the west? Well, it's payback time. First Nations people now own all the casinos.


NEW CALGRY RULES OF THE ROAD

1. You must first learn to pronounce the name correctly -- it is: "CAL-GREE". The second 'A' is redundant.

2. The morning rush hour is from 5:00am to noon. The evening rush hour is from noon to 8:00pm. Friday's rush hour starts on Thursday morning and ends on Saturday night.

3. The minimum acceptable speed on most freeways is 130 kph. On Deerfoot, you are expected to match the speed of the airplanes coming in for a landing at the airport. Anything less is considered "wussy".

4. Forget the traffic rules you learned elsewhere. Calgary now has its own version of traffic rules. For example, cars/trucks with the loudest muffler go first at a four-way stop; the trucks with the biggest tires go second. However, in Calgary, SUV-driving, cell phone-talking moms ALWAYS have the right of way.

5. If you actually stop at a yellow light, you will be rear ended, cussed out, and possibly shot.

6. Never honk at anyone. Ever. Seriously. It's another offense that can get you shot.

7. Road construction is permanent and continuous in Calgary . . . detour barrels are moved around each night to make the next day's driving a bit more exciting, but nothing ever gets finished, and more new construction starts every day.

8. Watch carefully for road hazards such as drunks, skunks, dogs, cats, deer, barrels, cones, cows, horses, cats, mattresses, shredded tires, garbage, squirrels, rabbits, crows, and coyotes feeding on any of these.


9. In Calgary, 16th Avenue, TransCanada, and "Hwy #1" are all the same road.

10. If someone actually has their turn signal on, wave them to the shoulder immediately to let them know it has been "accidentally activated."

11. If you are in the left lane and only driving 110 in a 80-90 kph zone, you are considered a road hazard and will be "flipped off" accordingly. If you return the flip, you could be shot.

12. For winter driving, it is advisable to wear your parka, toque, fur lined mittens and mukluks. Make sure you have a shovel, food, candles and blankets in the vehicle, as snow removal from the city streets is virtually non-existent until spring thaw.

can we sue the fire regulations setters for negiligence?

Can it be possible to sue the gov't for setting regulations that are safe but not the safest? if they say "put the houses 5 feet apart" but studies from building inspectors and chief fire fighters say "they need to be 15 feet apart", can the gov't that makes the laws be proven to be negiligent in their actions? Granted there are some things that the home owner has to take responsibility for. As in there are fireproof shingles out there but if a homeowners want wood one on their old house then they are taking the law into their own hands. But it looks like there was some strong evidence saying that the fire regulations were not up to scratch for the new developments.

If a person can be found negiligent using the 'reasonable man' model in a court of law, then how come our own gov't can not be held accountable? Instead of using the tax money from bank accounts of tax payers taxes they should go after the politicians and people that were on the commitees that dragged their feet. I mean, only fair considering what is the sence in the gov't making an act of negilegence for the safety of the people, have a huge $20 million fire and then go "right, our bad, here let me dig into your tax payers money and pay for our mistake with your money..there, all better now, let me go on vacation with my huge salary..boy did we learn our lesson". Definitly make them pay out of their own pocket, their own salaries and their retirement funds.

I am sure if we made the gov't more accountable for new regulations and laws, there would be very little 'committees' and a hell of a lot more action


http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/25/4366411-sun.html
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/25/4366413-sun.html

Pranks we play for fun

Here I thought that my friend and I were pains in the neck for his parents. The worst thing that we ever did at the age of 14 to his parents was put two ziplock bags with oregano on the kitchen table, put some icing sugar on the table cut into lines like cocaine with a razor blade and we just sat at the table. When we heard the door open we started talking about cost per gram, cutting costs, what we can cut the stuff down with and all and then when they came around the corner just looked at them shocked and he went "wow, mom...dad...you're home early" while I just sat there looking stunned. THESE kids, however, are the kings of the prank!*G* If I was the father I wouldnt know what to do first. Laugh with them, yell at them or pick up the knife and go medival on their asses. But, yeah, this was quite the clip.



But, it is always fun to see that not all kids grow out of the prank stage of their life. This is the kind of dad I am sure I am gonna be. :-)

two religious articles for interesting times

Came across two stories today that caught my eye that I thought I had to mention. Both of them involving my favorite topic and yours...yes, religion! Here is the first one about a town thought, built and enforcing Christian values. By the sounds of it they aren't being like some streets or condo units that are making people who buy into the area sign a contract saying they can and can not do certain things. Like Candy Cane Lane here in Edmonton where the house and condo buyers sign a bylaw contract saying that they will put up christmas lights from a certain time period in December for christmas to keep the tradition of Candy Cane Lane going. Instead, they are just 'strongly urging' people not to do certain things, and we all know how the Christian church loves to 'strongly urge' people. After all, I believe they 'strongly urged' Copernicus on the whole 'sun VS Earth being the centre of the galaxy'. Of course there are going to be critics and I am sure that this town will be a bulls eye for those people that see something and flock there not to be a part but to take it down. Like those people that see a gathering of religous folk and instead of letting them have their time to pray, the pot stirers show up with everything that the people hate to try to express 'their' belief.

Powered by AOL Video

Then there is 'political correctness' run amock. What happens when a Buddhist tries to open a chinese restaurant called 'Fat Buddha'? why white councel members step in to try to stop it because it might offend someone. Though, there was a statement in the article that I loved, thought was absolutely priceless and had me laughing. Apparently the councel is saying the gentleman can not call it that because some Buddhists might get offended, to which a response from the Buddhist Society said "Buddhists don't take offence at anything because to do so doesn't follow Buddhist teachings." Consider it the ultimate test of the Buddhist belief. If you take offence and complain as a buddhist, then you are obviously not a buddhist and therefore can not complain. But, leave it to the other people to step up and give voice to those people that have no voice either by force or by religious belief.

Personally, I think this whole naming restuarant problem is just a case of slippery slope and pre-emptive strike. Think of it this way. The councel sits back and says "ok, Fat Buddha...no one complains, so can't stop it", then 2 months down the road we have "Lazy Jesus" spa (come, relax, be treated like a savior in todays world) with a picture of Jesus, relaxing on a couch or on a lily pad on a pond. That of course is gonna cause a little outcry from the Catholics, not much mind you cause ther are still reeling from the whole crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Witch Hunts and of course the child sexual abuse that they are in the process of paying out. However, there might be a little bit of an outcry which means some people will respond with "well, if you can make fun of the Buddhist diety in commercialism, why cant you for Catholics?". This might die down but you know, you just KNOW, that some smart ass (not even Islamic himself but just a smart ass) is going to open a business called "Crazy Muhammad's Discount Brazaar" with a picture of Muhammad with his arms open gesturing to his great discounts. Well, we all know what happens there with the whole Danish cartoons of years past and the Islamic ever so calm nature to handling of religion. Then we get death threats, burning temples/mosques, beatings and drive bys. Why? because if you give one religion the right to do something, then you have to give all religions the right to do something in that same country. Then it is a case of State VS Church all over again and you might as well then just press the button now and nuke the world because I always say that 'there is nothing more dangerous in this world than a man with a belief and a gun/weapon'.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/text/article.html?in_article_id=469996&in_page_id=1770&in_main_section=&in_sub_section=&in_chn_id=

so, two articles, both on religion. I can now definitly believe that the ancient Chinese curse "may you live in interesting times" is upon us.

tax marijuana? it happens

I love it. Totally love it. In the great war on drugs in Canada there have been three major camps that I could see. We have our traditional conservatives that hold true to the old law of drugs and say 'we dont need better laws, we need stronger laws and stronger punishments to stop drugs'; we have the liberals saying 'we need to legalize it and then tax the living hell out of it'; and then we have the stoned out 60's throw backs going 'we need to turn the entire country into one big commune, smoking weed, growing cabbages and living in love, peace and harmony, dude!'. Well, it is good to see that the Canadian gov't has found a way of compromising. What is a compromise? some say it is "reaching an agreement to which both sides are unhappy with". I think, however, that the compromise that Alberta provincial judge has come up with sort of makes only the Conservatives happy and still ticks off the Liberals, but still using Liberal ideas. What did they do?

Turns out that Michael Fernand Paradis was handed 'a two-year sentence in April of 2004 and a three-year sentence in May of 2004 to run concurrently' for two pot grow-ops that he has served time on. Now, the Canada Revenue Agency is saying that he has to declare his income on taxes for that term and has to pay back taxes or face another 3 months in jail for default. I love it. So, let me see if I get this straight. We are keeping the Conservative idea of keeping marijuana as illegal to own or grow AND they are keeping the Liberal idea of taxing the hell out of it, but only for those people that grow and sell it. I wonder if this is going to be a trend. Tax the actual growers of marijuana when they sell the drug to a street seller as income for the grower, and then tax that same bag of pot again when the seller sells it to a user as income for the seller. Depending on how far that bag of pot goes, it could probably be taxed 3-4 times on someone's income til it finally gets smoked. Now, call me crazy, but sounds like the gov't is totally onto something here. It might just go down the chain a bit more. I mean, people always said for prostitution they should make it legal and then tax the prostitutes for their income. Good thing about that, though, is you can only charge a person once for the sex act, not like the bag of pot that could be taxed 3 times down the line.

****************
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2007/07/20/taxes-calgary.html

Drug trafficker fined for not declaring grow-op income
Last Updated: Friday, July 20, 2007 11:53 AM MT

A convicted drug trafficker has been slapped with a $55,000 fine for tax evasion after failing to declare revenue from two marijuana grow operations in Alberta.

"By and large, every source of income that you are getting is going to end up being taxable," said Canada Revenue Agency spokeswoman Joanne Gorsalitz. "It's important that everyone pay their fair share."

A provincial court judge found Michael Fernand Paradis, 48, guilty of tax evasion Thursday in connection with two large marijuana grow-ops he ran between 1997 and 2001 in Sundre and Water Valley.

He will have to pay a $55,000 fine, on top of the taxes and interest he owes.

The Canada Revenue Agency estimates Paradis's potential yearly income from the grow-ops was $1.2 million or about $274,000 after expenses, so its asking him to pay back $74,774 in federal taxes, said Gorsalitz.

Paradis has served time behind bars for the grow ops — he was handed a two-year sentence in April of 2004 and a three-year sentence in May of 2004 to run concurrently.

If he doesn't pay the fine within two years, Paradis will go to jail for another three months.

rape and murder with 3 mental illnesses

Looks like it is not just the teens looking for an easy way out. Let me see if I get this right, I make a bet with a person to rape and kill someone, I go through with it, I don't deny that I did it, I don't deny that my DNA was at the scene and claim that I suffer from multiple personality disorder, fetal alcohol syndrome as well as post traumatic stress disorder and I might get off? Sounds like this guy got the short end of the stick dont it? I mean, bad enough you suffer from MPD (which I think has been changed to Dissociative identity disorder DID http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissociative_identity_disorder) but to throw in PTSD and FAS? Damn, talk about being a walking time bomb.

Hard enough to put him on trial and find him guitly if he did have those diseases because you cant blame him for being at fault, and if you did find that one of his personalities did commit the crime, can you really imprison him for it? Though, doesnt this sound like an easy way out though? I get caught commiting a crime, do a last minute grab to claim mental illness and try to fake it. Since psychiatry isnt exactly a science but more a philosophy, kind of hard to really nail it down, right?

Simple solution, if he is found guitly of these crimes and no mental illness, put him in jail for life; if he is found not guilty due to mental illness, lock him up in a mental asylum and use him as a guinea pig for the psychologists/psychiatrists to find out about the illness for....oh, lets pick a nice round number here...LIFE. Harsh, I know, but oh well. I am learning that life is not really hugs and kisses to make people better, gotta learn to fight some fire with some fire, just not give a couple degree burns, not a complete witch burning of the witch hunts.


'Not responsible'
Man charged in savage rape to plead not guilty based on mental condition
By TONY BLAIS, COURT BUREAU

An Edmonton man accused of savagely attacking and raping a school vice-principal wants to be found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder.

Court of Queen's Bench heard yesterday that Ryan James Huppie, 23, apparently tried to commit suicide while in custody by biting a vein in his thumb. Huppie appeared at a pre-trial conference for his 20-day trial, which is set to begin on Jan. 7.

Huppie is charged with attempted murder, aggravated sexual assault, unlawful confinement, breaking and entering with intent to commit sexual assault and sexual assault with a weapon relating to the Feb. 17, 2004, attack.

Police say the then-33-year-old woman was repeatedly raped and then stabbed several times in the head, face and neck with either a meat cleaver or a butcher knife before she managed to finally escape her attacker.

She was taken to hospital by ambulance suffering from severe blood loss and deep multiple knife wounds. Three fingers were severely cut and one was nearly amputated.

In court documents filed in a related case, a friend of Huppie's who pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice for cleaning up blood from the attack and lying to police about Huppie's description, alleged Huppie had bet him $500 that he could rape and kill his next-door neighbour.

The court documents also allege Huppie entered the woman's suite by crossing over a common balcony and then attacked her while she was sleeping.

After being slashed and stabbed the woman played dead and, when her attacker walked out of the bedroom, she called 911. She then managed to escape into the hallway, but was caught and stabbed again. She eventually managed to get into a neighbour's suite.

Yesterday, defence lawyer Laurie Wood said Huppie would be pleading not guilty because he is not criminally responsible (NCR) due to a mental disorder.

"Our defence is one of NCR, plain and simple," she said.

Outside court, Wood said Huppie tried to kill himself while at the Calgary Remand Centre by trying to bite a vein in his hand.

The Crown is opposing the NCR application and prosecutor Rob Beck says he will proceed with a dangerous offender application if Huppie is found guilty of the attack.

Court heard yesterday Huppie admits he was the assailant and does not dispute the allegations. He also admits he was drinking at the time and confirms his DNA was found at the crime scene.
In 2006, Huppie was about to start a trial when his former lawyer told the judge he had just learned Huppie might have multiple personalities and could suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and fetal alcohol syndrome.

That derailed the case, as the judge ordered Huppie to undergo a 30-day psychiatric assessment, both to see if he is fit to stand trial and whether, at the time of the offence, he was suffering from a mental disorder.

Teens want to be treated like adults...IF it suits them

Oh, I just loooove this. I read this in the news today about something that happened in Edmonton awhile back, and thought the stupidity is over and done with, but looks like good stupidity dies hard.

Quick recount: Few kids hang out at West Edmonton Mall, get a girl to 'come to a party' and I believe one of the people actually knew the victim as a friend. They go to a golf course where the gang rapes and murders the teen (13 year old Nina Courtepatte) and then get caught and tried. I believe one was acquitted and others got limited from murder to manslaughter.

Now for the stomach turning (at least in my mind) part. One of the girls and the guy being sentenced are saying that they want to be treated as youths for the sentencing, not as adults, since they were youths at the time, though just barely under the line since they are 17 now. Is this because they didn't know their actions? is this because they were coerced by much older more violent criminals to do the deed (as in, 'join us to kill this girl or else we will kill you')? NO, the simple and bare answer is that they are looking for lenient punishment. The guy, who pleaded to first degree murder, "If sentenced as as an adult, he would face an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years in prison. If sentenced as a youth, however, the maximum would be 10 years, of which no more than six could be in custody." As for the girl, convicted of manslaughter, if "..sentenced as an adult, she could face a life sentence, but as a young person the maximum would be three years."

How many times have you heard the teens screaming out "treat me like an adult! I am an adult! leave me alone and let me make my own mind up cause I am an adult!"? I mean, recently we had two girls here in Edmonton fight for teens to vote in a civic election (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2004/05/14/teenvote_20040514.html), to which they lost but still had the option to take it to the supreme court of Canada. Teens want the chance to pick out their own clothes, pick their own friends, have all the luxuries the world can provide and then when the crap hits the fan, look to mom/dad or other things to bail them out.

Granted, ALL teens are not like that. There are a few bad apples in the bunch and you can't broad stroke them all. I mean, I know as a teen I was hardly in trouble, told the truth and studied in school, and I was treated with all the dignity that went with that growing up. Ostrasized, snubbed, picked on and called names by most of my peers in school but praised and patted on the back by teachers and parents alike. I just can not stand when teens scream independance and then bad apples bring it down.

If I had control, I would say abolish the Young Offenders Act, or whatever the hell they are calling that 'wrist slapping cause s/he is a baby' Act these days. Laws are here to protect people, punishments are here to teach them that breaking laws is not a good thing. What exactly is the justice system teaching kids when we show them "oh, you are under 16? ok, kill that person, we are fine with it cause when we take ice cream away from you for 6 months you will learn and when you are an adult you will smarten up". This justice system is teaching kids that they can get away with things and have a 'get out of jail free' card right up to a certain age. Case in point, the 13 year old girl in Medicine Hat that participated in the murder of her family with her 23 year old boyfriend (http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070703/alta_trial_070703?s_name=&no_ads=) You don't think in the back of her mind she was thinking that she was immune to the punishment because of her age? Interesting how the article notes at the end how she "..looked much like a normal teen during her testimony, as opposed to the "goth" look she had at the time of the killings." Interesting huh? the teens are learning to work the system, make it seem like they are victims instead of the criminals. I mean, if an adult was manipulating the court/justice system like that the judge would laugh their act out of court and slap them with high punishment (which these days seems to be a slap on the pee pee and a 'dont do it again' but that is another story), but when a kid does it these adults who seem to think that all teens are innocent babes led astray get up in arms.

Stop treating teens as teens, adults as adults..instead, let's treat them as they are. Law abiding citizens as law abiding citizens, criminals as criminals. Forget the age, forget the gender, forget the colour of their skin or religion that they follow. Pure and simple. You know the rules, they are not that hard to learn. Common courtesy. Don't kill, Don't steal, Don't Lie, Don't Cheat. I mean, with those 4 laws to go by, how can you do harm? And for those that say "well, if a 12 year old has been raised knowing that it is alright to steal how can you blame them when they steal at 12?". If that is the case, then how can you blame a 19 year old for stealing cars if they were taught that it was alright to steal? Basic child raising. Any parent that can raise a child will tell you, child behaves badly, devise a form of time out or punishment. Consider jail to be a really BIG time out. You steal a chocolate bar, ok, consider that to be a case for your parents to decide unless charges are laid, and maybe a grounding for 1 week. You kill a human, consider that a BIG time out in the gov't care where they make sure you behave and learn that killing humans is not a good thing, regardless of how old you or they are and whether you did it for malice or for kicks.

Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying bring back corporal or capital punishments, cause even I know that there is a line to be drawn in punishing and teaching people not to hit others by beating them, or teaching them not to kill others by killing them, is just way to messed up even for my mind to fathom. All I am saying is treat the criminals as criminals, law abiders by law abiders and dont consider age or gender to be a factor. Put these two murders away for life and maybe then we can send the message that killing, no matter how old you are, is not right.


http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070716/Courtepatte_sentencing_070716/20070716?hub=Canada

Convicted teens seek to avoid adult sentences
Updated Mon. Jul. 16 2007 5:30 PM ET
Canadian Press

EDMONTON -- Two teenagers convicted in the sexual assault and beating death of a 13-year-old Edmonton girl are going to court in an attempt to make it harder for them to be given adult sentences.

A sentencing hearing for a woman who was 17 when she participated in the murder of Nina Courtepatte was delayed Monday until court can hear the arguments.

Defence lawyer Colleen Connolly said she will challenge the constitutionality of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, arguing that it should be up to the Crown to prove that young offenders charged with serious crimes should be sentenced as adults. The current law puts the onus on the defence to prove they should be sentenced as youths.

"To be sentenced as a young offender, the defence has to make an application and they have to establish to the court's satisfaction that this particular young person should be sentenced as a young person," Connolly explained.

"That's constitutionally unsound. That's an infringement of the young person's rights."
Another offender, who has already pleaded guilty to first-degree murder in the horrific assault, is expected to make similar arguments next Monday. He, too, was a youth at the time of the crime.

If sentenced as as an adult, he would face an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years in prison. If sentenced as a youth, however, the maximum would be 10 years, of which no more than six could be in custody.

The woman, who was convicted by a judge of manslaughter, is to be back in court Aug. 3 -- after a decision is expected in the young man's case.

If sentenced as an adult, she could face a life sentence, but as a young person the maximum would be three years.

In addition to facing more severe penalties, young people sentenced as adults also can be publicly identified once all avenues of appeal are exhausted.

The challenges will not affect the convictions, but hearings to decide how the offender will be sentenced will still have to be held.

Connolly said that since her client was under 18 at the time of the offence, she should benefit from legal provisions taking into account that young people may not be mature enough to make fully responsible decisions.The young woman is one of five people charged in Nina's death in April 2005. She and her friend were lured to the fairway of an Edmonton-area golf course on the pretext of attending a bush party, but once they arrived, Nina was raped twice and beaten to death.

The young man who is also going to argue his sentencing options pleaded guilty last December.
Last spring, Joseph Laboucan of Fort St. John, B.C., was convicted of the same crime, but his co-accused Michael Briscoe of Edmonton was acquitted.

The trial of a second teenaged girl was delayed when she fired her lawyer on what was supposed to be the opening day of her trial.

Laboucan is appealing his conviction, while the Crown is appealing Briscoe's acquittal.
Evidence presented at the Laboucan-Briscoe trial was horrific in its brutality. It also exposed an ugly underside of youth culture, with tales of so-called "mall rats" drifting from dine-and-dash jobs in fast-food restaurants to having sex in parking lots and dabbling in the occult.

racial slurs and their insults

I have always heard the words and names in Canada for the other immigrants that are coming in. Some are said in jest, while some are said in malice. We have quite a few people working out in the western parts of Canada from Newfoundland and they are always refered to as the 'newfies'. As in "Johnny? sure, he is the newfie over there by the truck". Now, I have only heard one of the 'newfies' actually say that they didnt appreciate the term but that was always because I was telling him newfie jokes. Let's face it, in Canadian culture, newfies are about as big targets as blondes in the way of jokes and stereotypical intelligence. Mind you, these are the same people that brought us screech, kissing a cod and working for only 4-5 months of the year fishing and then going on UI for the other 7-8 months of the year and call that a living.

Then I got to reading a post by Lucky Tan and the loads of comments that followed, which I threw my two cents worth into the fray:

http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/2007/07/foreigner-scolds-singaporeans.html

seems that there is a bit of a disagreement as to what constitutes a racial slur or an insulting slur.

After some looking into the word anthropology of the racial slur 'chinks' I discovered more racial slurs than I really knew existed. This is one of the websites that give the names and a brief idea of where the name came from. http://gyral.blackshell.com/names.html Amazing isnt it? Here I thought it was only children that take a certain person, find one thing about them and make up childish and immature labels about that person that stick and then go to other kids that are similiar of the one child. Seems adults are just as good at name calling as children are.

Of course this brings up my points on what makes an insult an insult. Is it the implication of the name to the person, or what the person thinks that name implies? I have heard of some people that are not only ok with being called red necks, but they are proud to be a red neck and will describe themselves as one. A person I worked with in the past was proud to be called a red neck and Jeff Foxworthy not only calls himself a red neck but has made an entire famous career telling jokes about red necks (which usually end up to be himself and his family members). So, in that case, being a red neck is a good thing. However, there are some people that will grab the gun off their gun rack and beat you with the stock for even mentioning that they are being a red neck in their thinking. So, what makes the difference? the implication that the person implies, or the way that the person hears it? If you are happy to be called a red neck, then it is not a racial slur; but if you are unhappy with being called a red neck, then it is a racial slur?

If you were going to take this to the ultimate extreme, then that would have to be the N-word. The dreaded "nigger" word that is tossed around. The word that had Mark Twain's "Huckleberry Finn" banned in many North American schools just because of the usage in it for one of the main characters. A word so horrible that even writing it down makes my spine tingle. A word that I heard one of my co-workers use to describe a job as "...doing N work" and not only I but 5 other members of the work crew refused to speak to him for days because we were insulted by his ignorance. This should be the mother of all insults right? If that is the case, then how come in rap songs by 'African American' (or whatever the PC term is these days) artists constantly refer to their 'friends' as the N word? You hear a group of people coming up and going "wuz up, my N" and they all act friendly and all, but you hear one white guy come up to that same group and ask "wuz up, my Ns" and there is a 99.9% chance that you are going to be finding that white guy beaten in the ditch somewhere (the other 0.1% of surviving is if he can run REALLY fast) and no one in the hearing vicinity will consider this a wrongful beating.

So, I it seems that the whole racial thing is a confusing state of affairs. If I find it insulting, then to show respect the word should not be used to describe me or around me. So, in that case, does everyone get a one free pass for the obvious? you can come up and call me an 'Ang Mo' (Singaporean slang for 'caucasian) once and when I either glare at you, not laugh with you or even say "I dont appreciate that word" then if you say it again in my presence the sayer is being the insulting ignorant prick and I am not being over sensitive, right?

Though does language negate the insult? I mean, if a chinese person comes up to me and says in english "why you being so ang mo?" meaning 'why am I acting like such a white guy', then could that be considered a racial slur since they are speaking english but using a word in another language when they could have used the english word like "why are you being so caucasian/white?" (I actually had one of the cooks I work with come up and see my work and go "how white of you" meaning "how civilized of you"...that guy got on my bad side instantly and I really didnt warm up to him)? What if that same person in the said that same sentence but in Hokkien, where ang mo is from. Does that mean it is a racial slur or insulting or innocent because it was used in the right language context since you really cant expect them to say it all in Hokkien but add 'caucasian' in where ang mo should be. If that is the case, does that mean I am being a racist if I say "stop being such a..." in mandarin and end it with 'chink' in english, but I am not being racist to say "stop being such a chink" all in english?

Live Free or Die Hard movie review

Live Free or Die Hard....Die Hard 4.0...Die Hard 4...whatever you want to call it, I think you might as well call it a 'great movie' and forget the different titles. I mean, as far as Die Hard movies go, this one is good. Granted, I wouldn't say it is the absolute best, but it still has all the mixings in there of your typical Die Hard. Sarcastic, jaded, burnt out cop/evil scheming know it all bastard master mind/side kick along for the ride for comic relief/bunch of explosions, gun shots and senseless brutal violence. I mean, who could possibly ask for anything more?

If you are sitting there thinking that this is a 'shoot em up, blow em up' kind of movie...well, ok, you are right there. However, the characters make the movie so much more. MaClane, for some strange reason (besides him being totally invinsible and indestructable...I mean, the guy is like the damned energizer bunny that just keeps coming and coming) is actually incredibly life like and believable. Not a hero, just there to do a job. Making it true that heros are not brave, courageous people that do amazing stunts and feats of strength. A hero is someone that stands up for what they believe is right and holds to that conviction to the end cause it is true. He also pulls of this attitude with humility and doesn't come off as a self righteous twit.

Timothy Olyphant (who I remember from the creepy pimp in 'The Girl Next Door') plays Thomas Gabriel, the evil villian. SOOOOO much is said there right in the name 'Gabriel' that I had to shake my head. I can't elaborate simply because it would spoil too much, but I always find it funny when the writers put in names of people little twists and all. Like in Insomnia when Al Pacino plays a cop that can't sleep is called Detective Will Dormer, with Dormer being a play on the french work dormir (To sleep). However, I thought it was just old video games that made it obvious. I once played a game where the main character 'helping' you through the whole game was named Natas (Satan), only you find out later that he is the evil creature that you have defeat to win the game and you were a pawn. However, he does play his character extremely well. His character was right up there with the other villians of the Die Hard trilogy and I found myself on the edge of my seat waiting to see how MaClane was going to kill that slimey bastard. There are two ways, in my mind, to make me want a character dead. Make him so annoying (any character with Paulie Shore) or self righteous (Optimus Prime) that you want him dead just so that you dont have to watch or listen to him; or make him so evil, so twisted and so heartless that death in the movies is what this bastard deserves because you know he could trick his way out on parole for good behavior and do it all over again. This guy was the latter.

The story and plot I have to admit was not the best. Though, when it comes to Die Hards I think it is just a case of you find a story line that works with the character, why bother changing it? I mean, Rambo works best in the jungle hunting down the enemy of choice that is after him, Predator works best when he is out hunting down people/things that deserve to be hunted (Predator and Alien VS Predator...Predator 2 was just stupid, though would love to see violent criminals being hunted by that thing), and John MaClane needs to be the 'monkey in the wrench, the fly in the ointment'. So while I was not surprised in the whole story, and even found myself calling a few of the plot 'twists', I was still happy with the way that it worked.

So, the only down side was the reused plot for dear old MaClane, but for action, comedy, explosions, sexy daughters and all over good time, I give Live Free or Die Hard 4 out of 5 stars, my butt cheeks were definitly not numb at the end of this movie and I will probably go and see it again, if not buy the DVD when it is released and have a complete Die Hard 1-4 night. I would say, out of all the block busters that have been released this summer, Die Hard has taken the lead.

Jumping the gun, glad it is world wide

At first I thought it was just our North American newspapers these days that report quickly and then ask questions later to get the truth. How when a major catastrophy hits (tsunami or the 9/11 attacks) the body count always seems to be much higher than it ends up to be when the bodies are finally counted, or in the case of attacks when someone is attacked by either gun, knife or fist the papers report a horrible beating and senseless attack but then when the dust settles there is always a reason or truth behind what was first thought. I mentioned this long ago with the Conley beatings on Edmonton Public Transit.

http://captcanuck.blogspot.com/2007/05/conley-bus-manslaughter-dropped.html

Basically, that long story short was bunch of teens allegedly attacked and beat a poor defenseless man to death on a bus. At prelim inquiry it was decided that the boys really didn't attack out of malice but were defending themselves as the man attacked them. They were cleared of all charges.

I guess the main point in this case is that once the news gives a human interest story, people quickly jump to arms. Man is beaten on a bus, we the citizens are getting tired of these beatings and are so quick to assume that the evil teens (the ones we read about so much) are the cause of the beatings and we dont care to listen to facts til they are printed. We hear about a tsunami tragedy and the body count is in the thousands, like 8,000-10,000 people dead, we instantly flood the help donation boxes with money to help these people and then wonder why a couple months later the body count has dropped down to 4,000 and wonder where our money went. It looks like it also happened again over seas.

One of the blogs I read on a regular basis (http://singaporemind.blogspot.com/) posted this clip:



and while it is all in chinese, I got the general feel from comments and his mentionings that the people were lining up to help, there was a shortage of blood and it all seemed to be delegated on a quota basis. You get a certain quota, you go over that quota and you have to find your own source or else you are screwed. However, recent articles are now poping up about this case.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/287449/1/.html

Quick and the short, woman goes into labour, suffers from medical emergency, massive bleeding happens, C-section was ordered, became a bleeding emergency and emergency bleeding blood transfusions were ordered. Family members were asked to come in to donate, which they did the morning but however the woman had passed away in the night due to "..DIVC, an acute blood coagulation problem." However "The Bloodbank@HSA said blood is provided to all patients at all times, based on clinical needs. And all bleeding emergencies are given first priority."

So now I get the feeling that the first mentioning of this happening was the clip and people were whipped to a frenzy, then this article comes out and sort of smooths away a few matters saying that blood is not withheld, just takes some time to get through channels. Then, comes another article.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/287574/1/.html

In this one, it is flat out said she was not denied blood and not because there was insufficient blood at the hospital. Seems blood is readily available and while I personally don't think that it is a good practice of the blood bank to go up to a husband/father of a woman who is in an emergency life saving procedure and say "yeah, we are doing what we can, she has had to have a lot of blood transfusions and maybe you and family members would like to go down and donate", it is sound practice. I mean, what better way to get people to donate than to put the fear of losing a loved one in. If you stop a person on the street and say "hey, why dont you go in to the blood bank and donate" people might find time to do it 'later..when I have a moment', but put a loved one on the operating table and you got 200 relatives lining up to donate blood. Would be interested to know how many of that 200 people lining up to donate were regular blood donors, giving their maximum limit of blood once a month. I know, personally, I am in that boat. I have looked at donating blood myself but the 2 week future date has me sort of put off since my work schedule is screwed up and never know when I can do it, but put my mother on the operating table and I would walk out of work to go down to the hospital and get hooked up to a direct line to help her out. So, can't really fault them or point too many fingers, just wonder if they are like me or if all 200 are regular donors on a regular basis.

But this final article does give a firm stance. Nothing was wrong, all procedure was followed, it is a workable system, all are safe and secure, it was a common body failure that caused her untimely death and no fault of the doctors, hospital or system. All people talking seem to be making mischief, and this is the truth.

Very similiar to the Conley case. Canadians (even myself) were all set to believe that the teens were hooligans, evil ungrateful little twits that would slit your throat sooner than look at you. However, in the end, it was a court that decided that they were not to blame and gave us the facts and the truth. Just as the hospital reports and the bloodbank reports gave Singapore the truth about this unfortunate instance. In both cases, someone died, the people jumped the gun, the truth is out there.

Canadian equivalent of an attempted assassination

I don't know what it is about today, but seems the stupidity is coming out of the woodwork.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2007/07/09/4325636-cp.html

an article about a woman who tried to 'pie' the premier of Alberta. What I love about this 'attack' was that Ed just came into power on December 14, 2006. So, let's see, he is put in charge of Alberta not even 7 months ago, and he is being pied for not building affordable housing for all the people that are flooding to Alberta because of the prosperity. The same people that were probably laughing in their own provinces when us Albertans were complaining about Klein's slashing of all things from education to hospital to start saving some money, bringing Alberta out of debt and giving Alberta a surplus of funds. Now, in 7 months, he is going to snap his fingers and buildings are gonna pop out of the Earth instantly? Come on, give a guy a chance to at least get the ducks in a row, file a few pieces of paper and get things happening.

As for the 'attack', some countries go for a shot gun, some try bombs, some even go so far as to do poison to show their discontent with the leaders of this country. What do Canadians prefer? coconut cream pies, chocolate cream pies or plain and simple eggs. Ohhh, the horrors of Canadians. At least this shows some encouragement that when it comes to the common man on the street we will stab, beat and shoot them when it comes to hating them because they are a different colour, make more money, are of a different race or religion BUT when it comes to the leaders of the country, we restrict ourselves to food products. I wonder if it has to do with the amount of protection. Perhaps if the common citizen had a sort of protection service. Perhaps if there was some strange sort of 'justice' system in place that would either punish the guilty or protect the innocent from those horrible things from happening. I mean, the commoner on the street has nothing and gets shot or stabbed; a premier has a band of people surrounding him and protecting him, and he gets pied. Perhaps, and just a strange thought here, if there actually was enough police in the area, or perhaps the police that we did have showed up within a reasonable time limit, perhaps the crime might go down. Maybe the commoners of Canada might just get pied or egged instead of shot or stabbed.

But, hey, just talking out of the side of my head at the moment, no real concrete evidence to back me up.

Just random stupidity

While walking home today, I came across a street intersection with a button to press. Now, normally I see these around that usually read "to cross 101 street, press button". Usually for a busy intersection that normally wouldn't stop on a regular basis to let pedestrians, that aren't there, cross. Helps with the flow of traffic and all since we are all busy people. Well, I came to this one street that had a button, but as I reached to press it, I actually read the sign.

"Press button for audible signal only"

This obviously means that regardless of if I push this button or not, the light is going to change and I am going to get the walk signal to cross the street. I then thought "who would need this then? why was it installed?". The answer is probably the blind. I remember seeing a game of baseball in a documentary about a blind camp for kids where they would stand up at the plate and the pitcher (counsellor who could see...cause having a blind pitcher for blind batters is just toooo Caligulian for even that ancient dead sick ruler) would always pitch slow to them. They would then swing and if they hit the ball the first base person would ring a bell and the player would then run towards that bell. Each base had a different bell sound so that if there were two runners running, they could follow the bell that they recognized as the respective base they wanted. So, I figure that if a person was waiting for a light to change that couldn't see, they would need some auditor clues as to when to walk. Some intersections, like this one, had advance greens where the cars going foward were stopped but the ones that were turning were allowed. In this case, simply listening for the cars stopping and hearing who was driving really wouldnt be of use to the blind person. Ingenius, isnt it?

Then, of course, I got to thinking. The sign is printed, there is no braille on it to tell a blind person what it is for, and since they can't see to read it, how are they to know? As well, there are no sounds or anything coming from the sign itself to attract a blind person by sound to let them know that it is there. So, basically, what we have is a button, hooked up to a light switch, which would have cost the city tax payers some money (cause, let's face it, their appearance and maintenance is not free, nothing is), and it is for helping the blind cross a street, but the blind can not see it to use it? That makes about as much sense as funding an entire organization for helping people with debt and credit problems, but they put it in the basement of a building that is condemned and don't advertise that the organization exists or tell anyone about it, but still suck tax dollars.

Ahhh, yes, yet another wonderful thing brought to you by the gov't that really has more money than brains.

Transformers movie review

I guess I will have to say that this movie review is going to be the lone review standing out saying I did not like the Transformers movie that is out. It seems the few friends I have talked to about the movie loved it, thought it was fantastic and, since I have a tendancy to sort of 'over analyse' films, they refuse to listen to my opinion. All I am allowed to say is "I did not like the movie" and that is all they want to hear.

So, going to write my reasons here as to why I thought the movie was not that good, and I will tell you now that this review will include many many spoilers since that is what I had problems with. After all, as I have often believed, the Devil is often in the details.

On the surface, I would have to say that the movie had it's good points. The main kid character, Sam Witwiky played by Shia LaBeouf, was amusing, gauky, comic and basically a person that all teens in high school outside of spoiled brats and football jocks could relate to. Often his lines worked with the scenes and he was the character that the average kid could think of becoming. However, his female lead (and love interest in his life) Mikaela Banes played by Megan Fox was a severe disappointment. Well, maybe I should say disappointment if you actually expect acting, believability and a little thing called 'character depth'. If, however, you were just expecting a nice ass, killer body and sexy pouty looks now and then to fire your male hormonal rockets, then oh man did this woman nail the part! Who knows? perhaps from the director point of view, that was all that he wanted. He wanted to show that this girl really was a shallow and insignificant character with no real personality whatsoever and had lived her life on just her looks alone and really had no interest in developing some sort of personality. Her best moment was when she cracked open the hood of Bumblebee and looked under with her sexy hip pose and sweat all over her. That one shot was her best acting scene in the whole movie. Didn't speak a single word, just stood there and let her 'ass'ets be known.

The other characters had a few moments of amusement, they sort of set the scene for some good acting. Jon Voight and John Turturro played their respective military/agency men characters extremely well and were great in all the right places. The voices and action of a few of the Autobots were good. The few lines by Ironhide and Ratchet were well placed and showed some good character. Bumblebee was interesting with him only being able to talk through the radio was alright. Though a HUGE disappointment in Optimus Prime. I mean, I remember the cartoons, and Prime was extremely honourable and rightgeous, but this movie took him WAY over the top. I mean, some of his words, though nice and all, did not fit the movie in my opinion. At least back in the cartoon when no one died (few flames, few explosions but you always saw the people walking away from the wreckage) Prime's honourability had a place and was expected. But when you have Decepticons killing people left, right and centre, going completely ape shit on an entire city, Prime's standing tall "we shall fight. We shall prevail. We shall protect the humans at all cost because *insert long winded cheesy talk regarding freedom, choice and rights here*" just is too much. I have to say that during the final battle I was preying for either Sam to sacrifice Prime or for Megatron to win just to shut up his self rightgeous crap. I mean, honour and all is good, his sentiments were fine, but he reminded me of the religious spouting fanatics that knock on your door and force you to lie flat on the floor with the lights out so you don't have to listen to their views and all.

The story and plot were also incredibly lame and just a huge disappointment. There were so many things that happened in that movie that had me going "what? are they even thinking clearly?" But, then again, I had to remind myself that these are military trained men and military ministers making decisions so they really arent the best or brightest ones in the bunch. Decepticons are coming to attack, big ass killer death robots that have no respect for human life, and you have something that they want but are trying to get it to another location. Hey, I know, great idea, let's take that item, run it to the middle of downtown of a major city where hundreds of humans are walking and driving around and let's then be shocked and amazed that they are going to open fire and blow up a lot of buildings and hurt/kill a lot of innocent people. Granted, these are the same army people that brought you Iraq and the WMD hunt. That was only one thing in the whole movie that had me going "What?". Trust me, if you go and actually think about the movie and what is happening instead of just looking for explosions and hot girls butts, then you might find yourself wondering as well.

Things that the writers changed about the Transformers that I did not like now. I remember the movie/cartoon about how the Transformers crashed on Earth and the on board computer did a scouting recon of the area and fixed the damaged Transformers and gave them the vehicles that they could transform into. In this movie, I got the impression that the robots could basically scan vehicles and take on their outwards appearance. Bumblebee scans a new camero after being insulted by Mikaela about him transforming to '..this hunk of crap.' When the Autobots crash to Earth, they each seem to pick the vehicle they want to become and then take that form. Ok, fine, I will buy that. I will even buy the fact that since they wanted to be undercover and not noticed, no sense in scanning tanks or Anti-aircraft weaponary machines and try to drive that through the burbs since it would be noticed. But, after they knew where the Allsparks was and were planning to go and get it, why wouldn't they attempt to find vehicles that were more suited for the job? Then when they discover that the battle is being moved to the down town part of the city, they don't take a second to find some combat vehicles to change into but go in with just being cars. Call me crazy but to me that sounds like you putting a bunch of weaponry out in front of two different gangs and the bad guys grab guns, knives, metal pipes and chains. The other gang then grabs hair dryers, cuticle clippers and puts on Armani suits cause even though they are going to fight, they look stylish. No wonder the Autobots needed the help of the humans to take out a few of the Decepticons, cause they were ill-prepared and totally stupid.

In the end, I have to say that I enjoyed the movie for the first 15 minutes or so and then things started to happen that got me thinking and wondering and the next 2 hours and 15 minutes was total hell. I think that if I was able to 'transform' myself back to the mental age and acuity of an 8 year old (around the time I remember watching it as a kid) then perhaps it might have been a good movie and I would have enjoyed it. Too bad it wasn't so.

I give this movie 1 out of 5 stars, since both of my butt cheeks went number 15 minutes into the film.

CNN reporter is 'skeazier' than porn webmaster

I came across this clip:

http://www.pandachute.com/videos/adult_webmaster_owns_cnn_reporter

Now, call me crazy, but for some reason I hold more respect for the 'skeazy' webmaster in this clip than the CNN reporter. I mean, I always thought that a reporters job is to dispassionately report the news. Here this interviewer takes it personal and to a different level. Actually saying that the guy is skeazy, calling him a loser? Something tells me that the producers forced her to take this interview and didnt let her pick and choose it. While I may not agree with the webmasters site, or even condone pornography and all, the irresponsible and disrepectful behavior of this reporter has me really doubting the credibility of Fox News. I mean, if they say "We report, you decide", then shouldn't they actually enforce that on the reporters and instead of them just making rude comments to the people they are interviewing, why not actually find out the facts and give that out. All we get is 'police, parents dont like it...' and then 3 more minutes of bashing him and calling him a loser.

Definitly poor reporting and extremely poor professionalism.

beating threatened, but slap on the wrist given

I guess I have to start to worry about Canada now. I remember when I read an article stating that nearly 70% of Singaporeans support the death sentence for all crimes (drug and murder) and that the sample size of those questioned was 500 people on the street. The person I talked to about this said that it was a just sample size and should be believed. Guess that means that Canadians are beginning to turn the other way. In a poll on the Edmonton Sun web page, they were asking about corporal punishment:

Should corporal punishments, such as whipping, be a sentencing option for judges?
Yes 76%
No 24%

Total Votes for this Question: 1311

I, personally, could never understand the paradox of "if you beat someone, I shall beat you to show you that beating someone is wrong. If you kill someone, then we shall kill you to show you that it is wrong". I often wondered what the sense in 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' sort of logic works in this area. But, like some people say, you make the punishment higher than the gratification and people wont do the wrong doings. Which would explain why you cant pick up a Canadian newspaper without hearing about murders and assaults, but the countries that have corporal and capital punishment have virtually no crime whatsoever.

Why was this question asked? well, in the below article, apparently a judge said that if he could have this guy whipped for assaulting a mother in front of her son, he would have. Gives a sort of inclination that yes he is gonna throw the book at the boy, right? give him hard time, lock him up for good, teach him a lesson. I mean, if I had the power of the court for punishment behind me and actually said to the guy "I wish I could have you beaten" then I would have made damn sure that the punishment he got was totally extreme. If the defence complained saying that he needed to be shown mercy, I would have just responded with Canada is becoming a place that criminals dont think of the consequences because the punishment by courts are always too lenient. This is an example and we can hope that other judges will listen and learn and start punishing harsh crimes to their full ability. I know for certain (from all the complaints I read in the opinion column) that there wont be a huge rally of people writing MPs and MLAs screaming "that rapist who assaulted his ex wife in front of her children should not have gotten 10 years in prison. He was such a nice lad for pleading guilty early. He deserves a lesser sentence".

But what does the judge do? listens to a crown and defence submission, gives him credit of 26 months for the 13 months he spent in jail already? how exactly does that work with "I wish I could beat you"? I mean, that is like he said "I wish I could beat you, but since I cant, I will slap your wrist". It isnt like this guy was a good boy scout that just snapped one day and did something stupid like slapped his wife/girlfriend when they had an argument about supper. He is a self admitted crack addict, blamed the girl for forcing him to do it and he knowly commited the act and had rational thought (wanted to rape her because he knew he was going to jail and wouldnt get sex for a long time). So, he is a menace to society, commits a crime, goes to the judge and pleads guilty (and lets face it, there is no way that if he plead not guilty that he would get away with it.) and the judge gives a lightened sentence?

Here is the way I see it. Sexual assault (S. 271 of the Criminal Code) under Summary conviction is no more than 18 months, Indictable is no more than 10 years. Utter death threats (S. 264.1) is Summary 18 months, Indictable is 5 years. Unlawful confinment (or the closest I could find of Forced Confinement S. 279(2)) is Summary 18 months, Indictable no more than 10 years. Now, with just those three offences being admitted to, and assuming that the crown went Summary (since it could have been the guys first offence, crown didnt want to waste time with an Indictable matter, the police screwed up somewhere and didnt want to waste time in court), the guy at full punishment would get 3x18 months = 54 months (4.5 years). If the crown went Indictable (because he had a long record, they had a slam dunk case) the guy is looking at 25 years for these three admissions of guilt. Anyone see a bit of a problem here? on three summary offences, at maximum sentencing, he is going to jail for 4.5 years, and yet the judge only gives him 5 years. So does that mean for the other 2 offences he got 6 months? Driving your car without insurance gets you a $3800 fine or 18 months in jail. So does that mean that this guy admited guilt to two crimes that was less criminal than driving without insurance? what did he do, litter on the way up the walk? smoked in a public place before going into the house? I mean, even being in possession of the deadly weapon (the gardening tool) and threatening her with it should at least give another 18 months in jail Summarily. So assuming that the judge really threw the book at this guy and the summary charges all gave 18 months in jail, for 5 offences that is 90 months or 7.5 years.

So, how exactly can a judge go from "If I had my way ... I would ask the Parliament of Canada to bring back whipping" to "ok, here is 5 months in jail and we will consider your 13 months in jail while waiting for trial to be 26 months..have a nice day"? No wonder our criminals are running free if the judges these days are too weak to throw books.


'Bring back whipping'
Judge has harsh words for man who attacked woman in front of son
By ELIZA BARLOW, SUN MEDIA

A judge lamented the demise of corporal punishment as an option as he sentenced a city man to five years in prison for terrorizing his family and raping his ex-girlfriend in front of their two-year-old son last year.

“If I had my way ... I would ask the Parliament of Canada to bring back whipping,” said provincial court Judge Michael Stevens-Guille after 45-year-old James Jacobs stood up in the prisoner’s box and tried to blame his ex for his terrifying behaviour.

Jacobs pleaded guilty Wednesday to five charges including sexual assault, unlawful confinement and uttering death threats in the June 14, 2006, incident that sent the city police tactical unit to the Abbottsfield Road townhouse where the victim lived with her three sons, then ages 10, 7 and 2.

Crown prosecutor Shelley Bykewich told court the victim had just sent her two older sons out the door to school just before 9 a.m. when she heard a distressed cry of “Mom!” and discovered Jacobs waiting outside.

Jacobs pushed himself into the home, brandishing a sharp weapon described as a five-point painting tool.

Wet her pants

Court heard the victim was so afraid she wet her pants and fell backwards to the ground, with Jacobs on top of her as the two boys watched in terror. She suffered a five-centimetre gash to her hand.

The boys obeyed their mother’s frantic orders to run to a neighbour’s place and call 911.
At one point, Jacobs picked up the couple’s two-year-old son in one arm and a kitchen knife in the other and threatened to throw the toddler out the window.

He also ordered his ex to stand in front of the window so that cops, who by this time had amassed outside, couldn’t get a clear shot.

Jacobs took the woman to the master bedroom and told her he wanted sex because he was going to jail and wouldn’t be having sex for a long time.

Bykewich said the woman said no repeatedly but Jacobs took off her pants and underwear and forced sex on her. The two-year-old boy had come upstairs in the meantime and witnessed the assault, court heard.

Throughout the ordeal Jacobs threatened to kill both the victim and the little boy. He also placed 911 calls threatening to kill the mother and son if police came to the house.

Eventually the woman managed to grab her son and run out of the house to waiting cops. Jacobs was arrested around 10:30 a.m.

Flashbacks

In a victim impact statement, the woman, whose name is under a publication ban, said all three of her sons still have flashbacks of the event and she is scared to be in Edmonton.

“I have immense fear about being attacked in public by (Jacobs) if he is released at any point in time.”

Defence lawyer Peter Royal told court Jacobs had a longtime addiction to crack-cocaine and was under the influence of crack when he committed what Royal called “grave crimes.”

When Stevens-Guille asked Jacobs whether he had anything to say, Jacobs told the judge his ex knew he was a crack addict when they got together, and accused her of repeatedly lying in the past.

After an incredulous Stevens-Guille pressed Jacobs on whether he was sorry for damaging the lives of four people, Jacobs finally said, “Yes I am. I’m sorry for what I done. Sorry to my kids.” He then sat back down and sobbed.

Going along with a joint submission from Crown and defence, Stevens-Guille gave Jacobs 26 months’ credit for the 13 months he’s spent in pretrial custody, leaving 34 more months for him to serve.

He also ordered that Jacobs be listed on the sex-offender registry for 20 years.