Simple presets go a long way in creating some beautiful shots.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Thursday, November 25, 2010
Toronto man sentenced to 5 years in attempted honour killing
As an interpreter leaned to his right ear, Selvanayagam Selladurai, 46, heard that the next four years and a month of his life well be spent in prison.
Selladurai plead guilty to three counts of aggravated assault last month stemming from a June 2007 incident that saw him run down his daughter, Anitha Selvanayagam, 16, his daughter’s boyfriend, and his son-in-law with a minivan in Scarborough.
Justice John McMahon said that although Selladurai was suffering from depression at the time of the assault, this did not excuse his actions.
McMahon claimed that Selladurai did not approve of his daughters relationship with her boyfriend, Prashanna “Pram” Anadarajah, 18, as he was from a lower caste in their native country Sri Lanka and that their relationship would bring “shame to the family”.
The court heard Tuesday that Selladurai believed that Anadarajah was a gang leader and that it was this reason alone that provoked the attack.
Selladurai was to be sentenced to five years, however McMahon took away 11 months for time already served.
“You are lucky that no one was killed,” said McMahon.
Andarajah, the intended target, suffered only a sprained ankle, which he limped on towards a nearby school to get away from Selladurai, who was threatening to kill him.
Anitha Selvanayagam and Lenin Sandrasingam, 21, Selladurais son-in-law, were dragged underneath the minivan for five metres.
Selvanayagam suffered hemorrhaging to her head, a fractured clavicle, a lacerated liver and other back injuries. She was hospitalized for three weeks. Sandrasingam endured a broken pelvic bone and needed immediate surgery. He continues to walk with a cane.
Crown attorney Eadit Rokach said that she was appreciative of Justice McMahons decision.
“[He did] a really good job of laying out the facts and reasons,” she said after the sentencing in Superior Court in Toronto.
McMahon told Selladurai and the court that cultural disputes do not exempt anyone from committing crimes in Canada.
Original sentencing was to occur on Nov. 2, however an interpreter was not available.
Reconnecting with Adoption Disclosure Laws
November is most widely recognized for its moustache charity drive, Movember. However it is worthwhile to look past the scruff adorning thousands of men’s faces and focus on the other growing trend in Ontario – adoption. November is adoption awareness month.
Last year saw a 21 percent increase in number of adoptions, from 819 in 2008 to 933.
In Ontario, there are many pieces of legislation regarding adoption. One is the Child and Family Services Act of 1990, which regulates the protection and adoption of children in Ontario.
This law only covers the beginning of the adoption process. Like all good movies, a third act is needed to round out the story and give all those involved a happy ending.
One aspect of protecting children may lead to the decision to make them legally free for adoption.
But what happens when years pass, lives are lived and a birth mother or adopted child (now grown-up) wants to reconnect with the family they may have never known?
For one such birth mother, who asked to remain anonymous, the search for information on her daughter’s life was long but well worth it.
“At some points I wanted to give up, but my family pushed me to continue.”
She became pregnant at 16 and had to make the same decision that thousands of others in Ontario have made.
“It was not easy, as you can imagine,” she said. “Looking back, I know I made the right decision. Her life with her adoptive parents is much better than what it would have been had I not placed her for adoption.”
The daughter, now a teen, remains close with her birth mother and sees each other every month.
The search for information may have been worth it, but because she did not place her daughter up for adoption through a children’s aid society, it made the journey much different. In Ontario, there is red tape everywhere and getting around it is difficult.
It is at this moment in the process where a very important measure, the Vital Statistics Act of 1990, comes into play.
After calls that this legislation was unfair towards adoptees, many adjustments have been made to address the issues of acquiring one’s own information. Non-adopted adult citizens of Ontario could obtain their original birth registration, something that was denied to those citizens who happened to be adopted.
Those looking for information on their birth parents or their adopted children would approach the provincial government’s adoption disclosure register to be matched with their birth relative. If there were a match on the system, the two parties would be asked to sign a consent form in order to release their identifying information.
If there was no match, only the adoptee could request a search for the birth relative. If located, the relative would be asked for consent.
In legal terms, there are two types of information an adoptee or birth parent can request.
First, there is non-identifying information. Children’s aid societies are in charge of releasing this information.
Bev Nettleton, a social worker in adoption services with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, explains her role in the adoption process.
“If an adoptee comes to us and wants his or her background information, we will give him/her everything in their file.
“What they then choose to do with it is entirely up to them.”
The adoptee or birth parent apply to the agency that oversaw their adoption process for information such as medical, behaviour, educational and other facts that would not directly identify any parties.
For instance, a birth parent can receive the age their birth child first walked, but not the name of the adoptive parents. The adoptee can also receive medical information of their parents, but not their names.
“We have to redact any names or any information about third parties,” Nettleton said.
This identifying information is handled at the provincial level, at the Registrar General’s Office.
It is there that adoptees and birth parents are able to obtain original birth certificates and names of the other parties.
The provincial government also deals with matching the two parties, should one, or both, choose to meet. This job used to be in the hands of the agencies that oversaw the original adoptions.
Brenda McNeely, adoption supervisor at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, says that the decision to put the responsibility on the provincial government was noble.
“The goal was people would have more access to information about themselves and in some ways they do,” she said.
Under a new law, the process has changed dramatically.
In 2007, the Adoption Information Disclosure Act was passed, but challenged days later during the case of Cheskes v Ontario. It was attacked, not on the basis of majority-rule, but because of the, as ruling judge Justice Edward Belobaba wrote, “entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is intended primarily to protect individuals and minorities against the excesses of the majority.”
Despite not wanting to be seen as a “constitutional umpire”, Justice Belobaba ruled that this act violated one’s right to protect their privacy (under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms).
“Included within the Charter’s ambit of protection are the applicants, who are part of a small minority of adoptees and birth parents that wish to protect their privacy. They have every right to do so,” Belobaba wrote.
The ruling led to the inclusion of a disclosure veto and eventually to a successor of the quashed bill, called the Access to Adoptions Record Act. This enabled any party to choose whether or not they wanted their identifying information released, should the other party request it (at the provincial level).
When the adoptee turns 18, he/she has the option to put a veto on their identifying information. The birth parent cannot ask for this information until their birth child turns 19. This one-year gap gives the adoptee a head start, so to speak, to protect their privacy.
If the adoptee does not put a veto on, the birth parent is entitled to receive all identifying information on them.
This puts the government and children’s aid societies in a position where they must balance someone’s right to privacy with another person’s right to their own information.
While knowing the name of a birth mother may help complete a long and stressful journey to discover an adoptee’s origins, it may on the other hand destroy the secret that same birth mother has delicately kept safe for decades, in some cases.
“We’re usually very convinced that were giving it to the person to whom the info is about,” Nettleton said. “The trouble I find is that we feel helpless in that all we can give them usually isn’t satisfactory. It doesn’t finish the story.”
Between September 2008 and April 2009, the Ministry of Community and Social Services reported that approximately 2500 people filed for disclosure vetoes. The split of those requests was split evenly between adoptees and birth parents.
McNeely says that although the agencies role has been restricted and altered, there are still advantages to going through the children’s aid societies.
“It’s really helpful for them to contact us so they can get general information, that we have on file, not names, but circumstances,” McNeely said. “So that they can prepare themselves for what they might meet when they are getting in touch with a person that they really haven’t known for a long time.”
“We want to be as helpful as possible to the birth parents while respecting the adults who are now adopted. We want to be respectful and careful of each person’s information.”
It is this balance that is being continually attacked in Ontario courts, and it is a battle that many hope will come to an end in the near future.
PlayStations targeted in Brampton truck theft
The newest in video games are constantly on the Christmas lists of children across Canada, however these high tech systems are also on the “want” list of thieves in Brampton.
On Nov. 17th, a driver went to pick up two trucks parked on Eastern Avenue, near Queen Street and Kennedy Road, each of which contained just over $500,000 worth of Sony PlayStation 3 and PSP systems each. When the driver arrived, the trailers were missing and have since been reported stolen.
“The investigation is still in the early stages,” said Const. Thomas Rattan. “We have no ideas on any possible suspects and are asking the public for any help.”
With the total value of the merchandise at just over $1 million, Sony has been notified of the thefts.
“Each system connects to the Internet when used and Sony has a way of tracking them,” said Rattan. “So finding these systems is only a matter of time.”
Peel Police would also like to remind the public that possession of stolen merchandise is an offence. Anyone caught with buying or using any of these systems will be charged, even if they are unaware that they were stolen.
Local businesses are also weary with a theft in the area.
“We are aware of the theft in the area and are making security precautions as a result,” said Doug Chambers of Bristol Car And Truck Rentals, which operates just down the street from where the parked trailers were stolen.
The first stolen truck, a 53-foot, light blue trailer with “Werner” printed in yellow and with a Nebraska licence plate of 85619, was parked along Eastern Avenue around 6:30 p.m. on Nov. 15.
The second rig, a 53-foot, white trailer with “XTRA LEASE” printed in maroon on the side and an Ontario licence plate of T62046, was parked on the same street on Nov. 15 at the same time of day.
Both trailers contained the Sony consoles as well as games for the systems and have yet to be recovered.
Anyone who may be approached with buying the products, has seen the stolen trailers or anyone who has any other information is asked to call the Peel Regional Police Commercial Auto Crime Unit at 905-453-3311, extension 3313 or Crime Stoppers.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Toronto Votes 2010 - Report from John Campbell's Election Party - Ward 4
An item I did for Toronto Observer Radio on Ward 4 candidate John Campbell. (Oct 25th, 2010)
Monday, October 18, 2010
Ward 4 - Etobicoke Centre
Etobicoke Centre is situated in the west end of the city, bordering Dixon Road to the north, the Humber River to the east and Kipling Avenue to the west. Measuring in at 17 square kilometers, Ward 4 is home to 53,275 residents, with a higher than average 20 percent over the age of 65, compared to Toronto as a whole.
English is the mother tongue of a majority (51.9%) of the residents, with Italian (7.5%) and Ukrainian (4.5%) following behind it. The average household income ($115,920) is approximately $35,000 higher than the average of Toronto.
Gloria Lindsay Luby is in her fourth term as councillor, having received 69% of the vote in 2006. Her opponents in this election are former Toronto District School Board Chair John Campbell and Daniel Bertolini. Luby is the favourite to win this year.
Some major issues for residents of Ward 4 include the rise in property taxes, support for senior citizens and construction of bike lanes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)