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.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
One of These Things Is Just Like The Others
2001 may have been the year most closely associated with the word “terrorism” (Word of the Year for 2001 was “9/11”). However, it is becoming increasingly apparent that 2010 is about to take its place.
Hundreds of terrorist acts have been committed around the world, seemingly on a daily basis, and the United States has itself been the target (and in some cases the perpetrator) numerous times. For the most part, these acts occur on foreign soil. 9/11 was itself such a shocking event because Americans were not used to these horrendous acts being committed on home soil. That was 2001.
It is now 2010 and not since the days of the Unabomber and Timothy McVeigh have American citizens been the ones coined the “terrorists”.
The first major “terrorism” incident ensuing on American soil this year dates back to February. Had one been watching the mainstream media (CNN, NBC, FOX etc.) covering this event, the word “terrorist” or “terrorism” probably was not mentioned once. On February 18th, Andrew Joseph Stack III, after setting his home ablaze, hopped into his Piper Dakota plane and flew it into Echelon I, a building dedicated primarily to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The ensuing explosion killed Stack and one employee, Vernon Hunter, instantly.
Despite the obvious correlations to the 9/11 attacks (piloting an aircraft into an American institution), the use of the word “terrorist” was minimal at best, if even uttered, by the mainstream media. Is it the few deaths that resulted in this? Or was it that he was a white, middle class American? The latter wins this round.
Another story emerged in late March. Nine people were arrested for taking part in an alleged plot to kill police officers in Michigan and then bomb the funeral procession using bombs a la improvised explosive devices in Iraq. The accused were part of a militia group called the Hutaree (a word created by its leader meaning Christian warrior). The attacks were to spark an uprising against the U.S. government, the militia’s enemy.
So we have an insurgent group, attacking American law enforcement with IED’s, to spark an uprising against the U.S government. Surely, this is terrorism. Try again, folks. Despite the arrests being coordinated by the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force, those arrested were labeled “warriors”, “freedom-fighters” and the like. Only until more details emerged about the “insidious plan”, as spoken by Attorney General Eric Holder, did the MSM start to catch on.The “captured warriors” (as coined by FOX News) were all white, middle, to low class Americans. They were plotting to kill American citizens, yet calling them “terrorists” was off-limits.
Fast-forward to last week. Faisal Shahzad has been pulled from his Dubai-bound jet minutes before it was to take-off and news anchors have already hurled the term “terrorist” at him. Shahzad is charged with attempting to attack New York’s Times Square with a car bomb. On May 1st, an observant street vendor noticed smoke pouring out of a parked Nissan Pathfinder and alerted the authorities. Inside the vehicle was a “Rube-Goldberg” contraption of fireworks, alarm clocks, gasoline and propane. Times Square was evacuated and an explosion thankfully never occurred.
Attorney General Holder called it a “terrorist act”. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said, “I would say that was intended to terrorize, absolutely.”
What has changed in this scenario that has sanctioned the use of the word “terrorism”? It cannot be that there has been death or destruction. There was none in this case (there was in the IRS attack). Maybe it was that it was replicating tactics used by overseas terrorists, in the vein of the militia in Michigan. It cannot be that either, they were “warriors” not “terrorists”.
The only condition that has been adjusted is that the accused is of Middle Eastern descent. Shahzad is a Pakistani-American. Yes, Shahzad is a terrorist. But we forget that yes, he is an American citizen, like the other accused mentioned above.
If Faisal Shahzad is a terrorist, then so is Andrew Joseph Stack III and so are the nine accused in the Hutaree militia. Color of one’s skin does not exclude that word from their narrative, especially if that narrative is being recorded for their criminal record.
Photos courtesy of the Examiner.com, and Reuters
South Park and The “M” Word
A monumental event occurred on April 14th of this year. The first public showing of Edison’s kinetoscope, the moving picture ‘machine’ (1894)?
No, that was not monumental enough.
How about the anniversary of the shooting of President Lincoln by John Wilkes Booth?
Close, but sorry Lincoln, this one trumps it. On April 14th, 2010, free speech got on its knees and surrendered to fear and intimidation. It perished at the hands of Comedy Central.
That day marked the 200th episode of one of televisions most controversial shows, South Park. Created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone in 1997, South Park has had a reputation for pushing the boundary of what may be said on TV and who can be poked fun at. One episode features the word “sh*t” 162 times (and includes a counter at the corner of the screen for those counting along at home). In fact, a season 11 episode entitled “With Apologies to Jesse Jackson” used the n-word 43 times, uncensored.
Many may think this would lead to an outcry against the creators (who are white). However, the NAACP applauded South Park. Kovon and Jill Flowers, who started the NAACP-supported group “Abolish the N-Word”, defended the show. “This show, in its own comedic way, is helping people to educate the power of this word, and how it can feel to have hate language directed at you.”
There’s no doubt that South Park continues to be the pest of the politically correct. For the 200th episode, all the celebrities and international figures who they had made fun of over the past 14 seasons (from Tom Cruise to Barbara Streisand, to Mel Gibson and Paris Hilton) returned to exact revenge against the fictional town of South Park, Colorado.
To summarize, Tom Cruise is tired of being made fun of, so he wants to get the only person in the world who is invincible to ridicule: the Prophet Muhammad. He threatens to sue South Park unless they bring him Muhammad. The town is reluctant to bring in Muhammad out of fear of being bombed.
Now, I must mention that in a season five episode, Muhammad was shown, in cartoon form. However, this occurred long before the Danish cartoon controversy. So for this episode, a blacked out box represented Mohammed with “CENSORED” written across it. The other religious figures of the episode (Jesus Christ, Buddha, Krishna, Lao Tzu and Joseph Smith) are shown in full form.
The main characters of South Park ask this group of “Super Best Friends” to let them bring Muhammad to their town so they wont get sued by Tom Cruise. Buddha replies, “We simply cannot risk any violence from the Muslim people.” They agree on one solution. They will put Muhammad into a U-Haul truck, so as to not let anyone see him and still prove he is there, wearing a bear costume.
This episode ends with a cliffhanger. Muhammad is about to step out of the bear costume and show himself.
All this ridiculousness is par for the course for South Park. However, an ugly turn is taken for the conclusion of the episode. In the week following the first part, a radical Islamic website called Revolution Muslim posted a note claiming that Parker and Stone “will probably wind up like Theo van Gogh for airing this show”. Van Gogh was a Dutch filmmaker who was shot and stabbed to death in 2004 for a film he created that was critical of Islam. “This is not a threat but a warning of the reality of what will likely happen to them.”
Sounds like a threat to me.
Due in part to this response, Comedy Central replaced every mention of the word “Muhammad” with a bleep. Since when did Muhammad become a taboo word? For a show that had no problem in saying “sh*t” hundreds of times, bleeping “Muhammad” is mind-boggling. Comedy Central responded claiming that it was to protect the safety of its employees, which is a rational response.
But what most media is not covering when reporting on this story is what else Comedy Central censored out.
At the end of the episode, one character makes a speech, which according to Parker and Stone, was concerning “intimidation and fear”. Comedy Central bleeped out every single word of the 16-second monologue! Not only did this word not contain the word “Muhammad”, it also did not contain any of the usual bleeped out words: curse words.
For Comedy Central to not show Muhammad (despite doing so previously) is low. To bleep the word “Muhammad”, bowing to threats from a radical group, is lower. To censor a speech, about intimidation and fear, after doing the previous acts, is not only immoral and unconstitutional, it is painfully ironic.
Free speech must be protected. If Revolution Muslim can threaten (yes, it was a threat, no matter what they may claim) the creators and then stand behind the Second Amendment, then it should be no problem for those very same creators to say what they please. At least in their case, there is no potential for harm.
At one point during the show, a citizen of South Park stands up and says, “Maybe enough time has passed that now its ok to show Muhammad.”
Guess not.
Collateral (and Unnecessary) Murder
(Originally published April 7, 2010)
In journalist circles, it is clear that the use of Wikipedia (and other ‘Wiki’ sites such as Wiktionary, Wikiquotes etc.) is taboo. The “facts” are unreliable, inaccurate and biased. Wiki’s (user generated, user submitted, user-edited sites) are an attack on journalistic integrity and professionalism.
There is, however, a Wiki site that has caught the eye of governments worldwide. And the governments are scared.
In journalist circles, it is clear that the use of Wikipedia (and other ‘Wiki’ sites such as Wiktionary, Wikiquotes etc.) is taboo. The “facts” are unreliable, inaccurate and biased. Wiki’s (user generated, user submitted, user-edited sites) are an attack on journalistic integrity and professionalism.
There is, however, a Wiki site that has caught the eye of governments worldwide. And the governments are scared.
According to the New York Times, the Pentagon has added Wikileaks.org, a site (run by the not-for-profit organization Sunshine Press) that publishes secret and sometimes incriminating documents, to a long list of enemies of the United States.
On March 26th, 2010, WikiLeaks released a confidential CIA report detailing how the French and German governments may be able to manipulate their citizens in order to gain support for the war in Afghanistan. The report contains section titles such as “Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters”, “Tailoring Messaging Could Forestall or At Least Contain Backlash” and “Appeals by President Obama and Afghan Women Might Gain Traction”.
Despite the horrendous details of this report, no major news establishment has decided that it be deemed the ever-changing description of “news-worthy.” As a developing journalist, it sickens me to see the front pages of sites belonging to CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS et al. pushing the press conference of a sex-addicted golfer and the ratings of a reality show over stories such as the one mentioned above. I never thought I would see that day, until April 5th, 2010.
On that date, Wikileaks, as promised, released a highly confidential and disturbing video depicting the killing of approximately 12 Iraqi civilians including 2 Reuters photojournalists by the United States military. The video, taken from an Apache helicopter and dated July 12th, 2007, shows about 15 men in the courtyard of an area of Iraq that had been known to harbour insurgents. The soldiers incorrectly accuse them of possessing Ak-47’s and RPG’s [“Have five to six individuals with AK47s” “Is that an RPG?”]. These “weapons” were in fact cameras, arguably identifiable on the video (which can be seen at www.collateralmurder.org).
The American forces then fire upon the group, killing all but one of them in the barrage. [“Yeah, we got one guy crawling around down there, but, uh, you know, we got, definitely got something.” “Oh, yeah, look at those dead bastards.”] The one wounded man “crawling around” was Saeed Chmagh, a driver and assistant for Reuters.
Before troops arrive at the scene, a mini-van enters, noticing the wounded man. Inside the van are two children. This horrific story becomes even worse. The forces in the air beg Saeed to pick up a weapon; for under the rules of engagement, it would allow them to fire upon him once again. [“Come on, buddy. All you gotta do is pick up a weapon.”] A man then exits the vehicle, attempting to help the wounded man, unaware of the danger hovering above. The soldiers are giddy; begging their commanding officers to let them fire. [“Come on, let us shoot!”]
After receiving authority, the van is fired upon (with children still inside). After the attack, troops arrive on the scene to take account of the damage and casualties. Once all is said and done, 12 Iraqis are dead, and the two children are wounded.
If there was one thing that disgusted me the most while watching this devastating murder on tape, it was what a soldier said when he learned of the wounded children. “Well it’s their fault for bringing their kids into a battle.”
For anyone who has watched this video, it is painfully obvious that there was no battle here. A battle involves two sides attacking each other. This was a one sided brutal murder, based purely on the hypothetical and misinformation. A camera lens mistaken for a rocket propelled grenade and a Good Samaritan mistaken for an insurgent.
These deaths were horrific, unnecessary and most importantly avoidable. Had the American government had their way, this video would never have surfaced, and those who access the Wikileaks website would be charged with a criminal offence.
It is democracy at its best, being kept under wraps and out of the attention of the public.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)