Why should Roman Polanski face justice?

2009-10-08T11:21:00.000-07:00

Mr. Polanski had a full and competent legal defence before an independent trier of fact in a first world court with jurisdiction. He lacked only one thing, innocence. Hence, Polanski, did what was in his best interests at the time. He made a plea-bargain in exchange for a reduced sentence wherein he allocuted - that is, he explained his actions before sentence was passed. He admitted his pedophilic nature and his horrific criminal behavior in administering to a 13 year old child, drugs and alcohol prior to committing child rape/sodomy. Case closed, almost.

Mr. Polanski then jumps jurisdiction. Thereby reneging on his responsibilities and chance to make amends for his most heinous criminal acts without paying, his albeit reduced, debt to society. He chose to use his wealth and fame openly hiding out in a legal jurisdiction, where those with wealth or fame are not held to the same standard of justice as the rest of us. To add insult to injury, Polanski, over the years and with unmitigated gall, has the audacity to portray himself as a victim, which victimized the child time and time again. Is it any wonder today, years latter the child now mature woman, has little interest in opening up publicly old wounds inflicted?

At stake here is the "Integrity Corner Stone" in the foundation of our first world justice system. Without admonishment, denunciation and especially a public condemnation, the ilk of the Roman Polanski's of this world, will have much less to fear, to say nothing about just retribution. The long arm of the law needs to bring him back, in shackles if necessary. For justice to be done, it must be seen to be done!

Doug Stead, Coquitlam, BC

Ludicrous amendment to Canadian Old Age Security Act

2009-10-08T11:19:00.000-07:00

Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla (Brampton—Springdale) recently introduced Bill C-428, as a Private Members’ Bill to amend the Old Age Security Act. Essentially she and all other MPs in Ottawa plan to reduce the residency requirement for entitlement to a life long monthly pension, from ten years to three years! This irresponsible betrayal of current and future generations of taxpayers is "estimated" to cost the better part of 3/4 of a BILLION dollars.

This stupidity will encourage the mass immigration of individuals with little or no capacity to be builders and net financial contributors to Canadian society. People in this age demographic will be encouraged to come to Canada by this generous handout and at the same time be eligible for full access to our already financially strained health care system. Has MP Dhalla considered the consequences of her thinly veiled attempt at buying votes? Once a bill like this is passed it will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to get it rescinded. Think of the cost today and to future generations.

Liberal MP Dhalla and all her elected peers should realize that Canada is not a bottomless money pit. If there is any money available for such a hair-brained scheme, it should be used to improve the lives of Canadians who have worked to build this country not to encourage the immigration of old people who have nothing to contribute to our country.

That Bill C-428 has gotten as far as first reading in the House, should be ringing alarm bells and raising questions: Is this part of a back-room deal buying MPs Votes in House of Commons? Buying ethic votes in the next election? Are Canadians MPs, of all stripes, stupid or just afraid to say NO lest the race card is proffered? No doubt in my mind, all of the above!

Let's hope that some semblance of sanity prevails in Ottawa and that this bill never sees 2nd reading.

Doug Stead

ref: 1st Reading text: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=2&Mode=1&Pub=Bill&Doc=C-428_1&File=24

Doug Stead's Blog

Why should Roman Polanski face justice?

Ludicrous amendment to Canadian Old Age Security Act