TURMEL: Turmel Crux Issue bigger than known
johnturmel
CRTC decision at the Supreme Court. I asked her to visit my blog
and read my last short post on what happened before the
interview. I'm sad to say she made mistakes and missed the main
point:
Brantford Expositor
Nov 27 2009 Page A4
Heather Ibbotson
JUSTICE
Turmel admits Supreme Court appeal bid over
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed an application from
John Turmel to pursue a civil case alleging he was unfarily
ejected from a local televised all-candidates debate two years
ago. "Technically, it's over. I objected and I lost," Turmel said
on Thursday. Still, the Brantford resident who takes pride in
being a perenial losing candidate
JCT: I take pride in being a candidate, not a losing one.
in elections locally and across the province,
JCT: And the country.
plans to request reconsideration by the Supreme Court, the very
top rung on the judicial ladder. Turmel said his reconsideration
argument will be "insulting" and he expects it to be dismissed by
the court once again. "I'll file it within a week and probably
get a "no" within a week or two," he said. Turmel said he is
astounded by the judges' "incomprehension of the physics of
democracy."
He had originally complained after moderator Tim Philp ejected
him from a 2007 Rogers Television political debate, when he
failed to remove a badge and interrupted another candidate.
JCT: Two mistakes.
Philp then summoned police to remove Turmel from the room. Turmel
alleged that his removal denied him an equal share of the free-
time partisan political broadcast during an election period.
Turmel filed a complaint with the Canadian Radio-Television and
Telecommunications Commission. That complaint was dismissed after
the CRTC found that Rogers had the discretion to exclude debate
participants who did not comply with the rules and format of the
program.
JCT: Superfluous misleading qualifier.
In July, the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed without
giving reasons his attempt to appeal the CRTC's ruling. Turmel
then attempted to appeal to the Supreme Court. That application
to appeal the lower court's ruling was dismissed, without costs,
last week.
JCT: So I had to write a letter to the Editor to correct her
mistakes and misrepresentation:
Turmel Crux Issue bigger than known
Letter to the Expositor Editor
Dear Sir:
Unfortunately, Heather Ibbotson's article titled "Turmel admits
Supreme Court appeal bid over" on my case against the CRTC missed
the crux issue and got a few facts wrong even though it was all
explained at my blog at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/turmel/messages
WRONG FACTS
"moderator Tim Philp ejected him when he failed to remove a badge
and interrupted another candidate. Philp then summoned police to
remove Turmel from the room."
Can I come by the Expositor with a tape of the Rogers debate and
show me removing my party button before Philp ejected me? And
once I had obeyed, of course, I could not have been interrupting
my own opening statement.
CRUX ISSUE
"the CRTC found that Rogers had the discretion to exclude debate
participants who did not comply with the rules and format of the
program."
Not. The CRTC cited the Ontario Court of Appeal ruling that
debates don't have to be shared equitably by all candidates
anymore and so Rogers had the discretion to eject me because they
had the discretion to not invite me at all. The issue wasn't
over whether or not they had good reason to eject me for being a
jerk but whether they have power to not invite candidates at all,
non-jerks too.
Odds are, we'll see fewer and fewer debates with all of our
available choices and I think that's important enough an issue to
take pride in my efforts set it right. Too bad your reporter
didn't see what was really at stake and left people with the
impression it was whether Philp dealt a little too harshly with
someone "who did not comply with the rules and format of the
program" when it was really over the guts of our democracy.
--
JCT: Of course, I told her that the issue wasn't whether Rogers
had the discretion to exclude for non-compliance with rules, it
was whether Rogers had discretion to not invite me at all let
alone change their mind and kick me out. I even made her read my
latest blog post where I'd said:
Canada Supreme Court okays excluding candidates from TV debates
>JCT: It's official. My application for leave to appeal against
the CRTC decision to let Fuhrer Philp have the cops take me off
the debate was dismissed at the top not because he had good cause
(I showed my party badge) but because the media can exclude
anyone they wish.
JCT: And I pointed out the quote they made was misleading before
she used it directly to mislead in the same way!
>Therefore, it was within Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate who did not comply with the rules
and format set for the program.
>JCT: Notice they include the false qualifier instead of facing
the issue that it was within Rogers' discretion to exclude
participants from the debate. Period. Whether they complied with
rules or not. Candidates are excluded from televised debates on a
regular basis who didn't get the chance to comply, they were
simply excluded. So saying I was excluded because I didn't comply
when it wasn't the issue shows their weakness. Cheap shot by the
court to include this when I had already explained it...
they just included extraneous superfluous reasons to hide the
true import of the policy of power to exclude for any reason.
They officially acknowledged the media may exclude candidates for
whatever reason they wish before going on to the reasons in this
particular case that don't even matter.
JCT: So, does she have any excuse for using the same misleading
statements I pointed out why and how were misleading in my post?
Sure, she just copied what they said without thinking about what
I'd said. And now she has to suffer being corrected in public and
have it pointed out she missed the link to the main issue. As
I'll correct the court in my application for reconsideration.
Since they mentioned the superfluous (short-circuited) qualifier,
they they didn't see the big picture either. Just Turmel being
maybe too harshly ejected for being a jerk? Not important enough
for the top.
Next time, maybe she'll consult with Susan Gamble who's always so
meticulous in her reports. You know I'm a tough complicated
enigmatic character and it's not always that easy to keep abreast
of the issues but Susan Gambler is one of the best. And I've been
interviewed by hundreds of Canada's top reporters, now editors,
over the past 35 years of my public life. So for me to say
someone's meticulous, that's a compliment.
Anyway, at least Ms. Ibbotson's keyed on the court's most
objectionable words, making it look like an unimportant issue of
a jerk being maybe too harshly punished, instead of leaving the
irrelevant "compliance with rules" when uninvited candidates
don't get the chance to comply at all.
I don't think she did a hit on me, I think she was misled by the
courts own words in the very way they intended to mislead
everyone with their summary. It worked, didn't it, if they got
her to think it was an unimportant jerk violating the rules
ousted rather than anyone they don't want not invited.
What an incredible difference a useless qualifier can make in the
impression made on the public. How many times was the Crux Issue
stated in my paperwork, dozens? And they still bring up the
redundant "for violating the rules" when guys who aren't invited
don't get the chance to violate rules.
Anyway, I hope Heather learns a lesson after being used as an
example of how the court's extra needless information whose
only purpose is only to mislead has been shown to mislead her.
And then again, it could have been a hit job.
But I don't think so. No one else in Canada's going to hear about
the Supreme Court letting Rogers not invite candidates from now
on, only Brantford readers, so they could have just not run with
it. So I guess it's of local interest.
But it sure crystallized my upcoming attack on these charlatan
judges before I accept the loss of my democratic right to hear
all the candidates on my ballot, (sorry, the media stress this is
a fight for candidates to loud-mouth off for publicity and never
a fight for voters to hear everyone). The fact they threw in the
short-circuited qualifier that misled the reporter is the sleaze
I'm going to throw in their faces. If they let this stand,
they're not fit to be justices in a democracy.
Let's face it, a low-tech lawyer can't chastise low-tech judges,
but an engineer can. And if they can't see the unfairness of
saying the equitableness requirements in free time allocation
does not apply to debates, again, they don't deserve to be called
Justice in a democracy.
You know from experience that a lot of these initial rants as I
parse the document often end up in the final barrage. As the
Great Canadian Gambler, I'm an expert in fairness and if they
make me lost my right to hear all my choices to the control of
Rogers' moderators like Fuhrer Philp, this is going to the most
contemptuous-of-their-lack-of-sportsmanship as I'm
reverent-of-the-office-they-wear.
Do you know anyone else who reminds the 2003 judges, Doherty,
Goudge, Simmons JJ.A. and the Supreme Court Chief Justice
McLachlin, Binnie, others of the 10,000 Canadian known epileptics
who died for want of access to their anti-seizure marijuana
medicine who would not have died had they accepted that the law
had died when the Paker Court Only Abrogated the possession
prohibition on Terry Parker Day 2001 and Parliament Only
Legislates and they have no since so the law's still dead no
matter that the judges have told Canadians that the courts have
brought the law back alive. Imagine you're one of their kids
reading the numbers and finding out daddy or grand-daddy is
guilty of "Crimes Against Humanity?" Not too much pride, right.
And the algebra is easy except that judges who are all lawyers
were the bottom of the algebra barrel. Har har har. And these
arithmetically challenged high-school math drop-outs are in
charge of our technical world. And the blood on their hands is no
clue of what screw-ups they've been. What do you want from the
bottom of the barrel? Having money and power only makes you float
up, it doesn't make you smell any better.
Anyway, we've seen the Supreme Court summary successfully hide
the true import of the case and that's going to be the grounds
for the reconsideration. More when I post the final document next
week.
And as usual, if anyone sees a cannon in my artillery I've
missed, I'd sure appreciate a message so I can bring it into
play. Want to have an impact on your world? Think up a way of
forcing the judges let the issue in or shaming them if they
refuse. After all, this is in the record for posterity. Of
course, I don't mean the Supreme Court Registry that can be
shoved down the memory hole as fast as George Orwell predicted
they'd be doing by 1984. I mean the Internet media.
Sure, back in the mid 1990s, I had every one of my posts all
around the world everywhere deleted by Paul Tomblin's crew who
sent out fraudulent deletes to all my posts. I complained to the
RCMP who warned them to stop and got some internet privileges
cancelled without ever responding to me. But sure, maybe they're
expecting the World Controllers to someday erase all the online
evidence of what they've done. But they're not going to get to
the disks that can each hold more than I've written in my
lifetime.
So, judges whose names are in these files, think about all the
blood on your hands if you're hoping to get into Heaven, if
you're so unlucky that there is one. And if you think the judges
who could have ended cannabis prohibition with blood on their
hands, it's dwarfed by the flood on the hands of the judges who
could have restricted Canada's banks to a pure service charge a
and abolished the interest charge in Canada's international
network of banks. A billion souls kicking Bora Laskin's soul
around in Heaven for letting them die by not listening to the
engineer specialized in banking systems who was explaining which
positive feedback loop I wanted them to cut.
If you think a judge's equation of responsibility of 4 epileptics
a day for doing nothing is bad, imagine 46,000 child deaths a day
in 1981 (UNICEF) when I asked them to allow Canadian banks to
create and lend them enough chops to survive and pay back later.
30 years worth of wasted kids souls, double that for wasted adult
souls, over a billion lost for nothing who could have been saved
to pull their own oar except that the bankers wouldn't finance
them an oar.
Anyway, other issues I deal with are genocides. This is a lack of
democracy. I have a find of away of making it funny, explaining
to a guy from Russia (we joked about their undemocracy) how we
exclude our undesired opponents in a way the courts have ruled is
still democratic.
Big loss, eh, right after the big Surgent win. Wild ride, eh?