Tuesday, October 15, 2013

Oct. 15: Unfinished business...

Let's start with a letter to the editor, "Don't confuse them with facts."  This is a type of letter that has appeared many times in the Irving press. The writer accuses anti-frackers of not knowing the facts; but he gives an amazing display of his own, crashing ignorance.

In fifty years of fracking, he writes, there is no proof of posoning of wells. Well, here's a lesson in business.

When a complaint is made about a poisoned well, the fracking companies settle (usually on secret terms) out of court. They do that because even though the cost typically runs into hundreds of thousands of dollars, it's cheaper that fighting a law suit. It also keeps the story out of the papers, so gullible people can write letters that there is no poisoning.

Did the premier of BC know that when she said there is no proof of poisoning? It's impossible to imagine she wouldn't. - just as it's quite impossible to think that David Alward doesn't know that.

For just a sample of such cases, google fracking out of court settlements. Even a TandT reporter could find that out - if he wanted to.

Then there's the question of the massive poisoning caused by waste water from fracking. And there have been convictions on this. Again, it's easy to find out. Google fracking convictions toxic waste.

You know, there's something very sick about a society in which people who want to protect themselves and their families and neighbours from forced poisoning get arrested in order to protect the poisoners. There's something wrong with a society that spies on those people as enemies of the state, and gives reports on them to the poisoners.


Then we should give some thought to the prof. Lapierre case. My, how quietly that all blew over; and how quickly we moved on with nothing changed! We were repeatedly told he was a man of great distinction and repute internationally. For years, he held major positions in New Brunswick on environmental protection. And in all of those years of appointments and awards (and a KC Irving chair at the nuniversity), nobody ever checked his credentials.  Many a government and many a big business was involveld, handing him jobs that would affect the lives of all of  us. And nobody checked.

And how does one get appointed to such government plums in New Brunswick? I think we all know that. Dr. Cleary get misreported, and then ignored. Even her winning of a national award was ignored.  But Prof. Lapierre was lauded as a giant in his field, a man of interernational reputation.

So I did some checking.

I could find no evidence of international eminence. This is usually gained by publication of research. But I found nothing that was even remotely in the big leaques.

Yet the Irving Press raved on about his splendour. He was being honoured, you remember, as the only Canadian to be invited to a major conference in Washington.. But it wasn't a major conference. It wasn't even an academic conference. And he wasn't being honoured. The Irving press lied about the whole t hing.

For decades, he has held major positions with direct effect on our lives. Indeed,  some with direct effect on whether we have lives at all. He was quite deliberately brought in to destroy Dr. Cleary's report - and then to become the lead man in serving the interests of SWN and friends.

He was not only utterly without qualifications to do that. He was also acting with a stunning immorality, endangering all of us.

That sounds criminal to me. and, it seems to me, there is some reason to question the legality of the roles played by politicians and big business in this.  I mean, if police are going to punch out a woman at a demonstration, and grind people's faces into the dirt because they don't want to be poisoned, shouldn't we all be taking a closer look at all those people in high places who might be guilty of far more serious offences?

But Alward didn't even apologize to us. Mr. Anonymous, leader of the Liberals, did his usual imitation of a dead pebble, and Mr. Irving wrote an impassioned letter about what a splended chap Dr. Lapierre is.

He is not a splended chap. This is not just a case of faked credentials. This is a case of those faked credentials being used in a way that could do very serious harm to hundreds of thousands of people. And it was done, it seems evident, with full collusion of the political and business leaders of this province.

This is not just a blip in the news. There are strong indications here of criminal behaviour - and of the stunning depths of corrutption and manipulation in this province.

So much for Section A. There's also even more about this alliance of city mayors for New Brunswick.
Today is the third day of talking about an alliance of municipal governments - and there is still no indicaton of the purpose of it. Even the people proposing it admit they don't yet have a clue what they would do.  There really is no story. So why are we getting it three times - and with more to come?

Well, whatever it may all be about, the prominence given to this non-story suggest its something the Irving want.


There is no report on that stunning story of severe global warming - and very soon. But, as I wrote yesterday, I never thought the TandT would have the integrity or the brains too publish it.


Foreign Minister Baird, the man who gets all indignant at abuse of human rights, is going to Laos to announce Canada will spend one million dollars to help that tiny and primitive country to dispose of the millions of cluster bombs that have lain all over it for decades, regularly blowing hands, arms and faces off children who pick them up.

Two million tonnes of bombs were dropped by the US on a poor and helpless Laos during the Vietnam War.

Two hundred and seventy million bomblets, cluster bombs, were included - 270 million bomblets on an almost defenceless population of 6 milliion people - with whom the US was not at war. Eighty million still lie there, waiting for children to pick them up.

God bless America.

Isn't it awful the way them there terrorists killed people in New York?

Canada will donate a million dollars for the cleanup. We spent thirty million on the 1812 celebrations.

Norbert Chunningham passeth undetstanding. He attacks the CBC for not have paid enough  attention to Alice Munro over the years. (She recently won a Nobel prize). Norbert, when the hell has your stinking and ignorant paper ever paid attention to any writer? When has the TandT ever published a book review? Except for the announcement of her award, when has the TandT every mentioned Alice Munro?

Then Norbert slags all other Canadian writers and "neurotic and obsessed" - largely, it seems, because they do not reflect his constipated political views.

Norbert concludes, "It's time we grew up."  Yes. Indeed it is.


1 comment:

  1. Fraud:

    Section 380(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada provides the general definition for fraud in Canada:

    380. (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service,

    (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding fourteen years, where the subject-matter of the offence is a testamentary instrument or the value of the subject-matter of the offence exceeds five thousand dollars; or
    (b) is guilty

    (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
    (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction,

    where the value of the subject-matter of the offence does not exceed five thousand dollars.[2]

    In addition to the penalties outlined above, the court can also issue a prohibition order under s. 380.2 (preventing a person from "seeking, obtaining or continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves having authority over the real property, money or valuable security of another person"). It can also make a restitution order under s. 380.3.[3]

    The Canadian courts have held that the offence consists of two distinct elements:

    A prohibited act of deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means. In the absence of deceit or falsehood, the courts will look objectively for a "dishonest act"; and
    The deprivation must be caused by the prohibited act, and deprivation must relate to property, money, valuable security, or any service.[4]

    The Supreme Court of Canada has held that deprivation is satisfied on proof of detriment, prejudice or risk of prejudice; it is not essential that there be actual loss.[5] Deprivation of confidential information, in the nature of a trade secret or copyrighted material that has commercial value, has also been held to fall within the scope of the offence.[6]

    (from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraud )

    There is absolutely no question in my mind, the crime that was committed by Mr LaPierre...... one can only suppose the "injured parties" are either too embarrassed, or too stupid to make a complaint.