GOVERNMENTS STICKHANDLE AROUND TRANSPARENCY LAWS

I've been posting on my "Elmira Advocate" Blog the last week or so in regards to the Region of Waterloo's Annual (Drinking Water Reports). These Reports are a huge disappointment in that they can hide numerous water quality problems right up to the point that the Region shut them down or take them out of service. Extremely high Method Detection Limits (MDLs) which basically only advise readers that there aren't contaminants above a certain concentration are one example. When we are advised that Glyphosate (Roundup) is <25 ppb. (ie. less than 25 parts per billion) we are basically being kept in the dark. Is there 10 ppb of Glyphosate in our treated drinking water, perhaps zero or as high as 24 ppb.?

Other problems include ubiquitous compounds found throughout urban areas including Toluene, Ethylbenzene and Xylenes, all courtesy of old and leaking gasoline stations, that are simply not reported. Even NDMA it turns out is much more common than we were advised it was twenty-five plus years ago in Elmira yet it is rarely if ever tested for and reported.

New wells are regularily added to wellfields and others shut down without a whisper. No explanations are given when they should be. Wells can have sleeves or liners put inside them in order to bypass contaminated aquifers or zones within aquifers and the wellscreen put into a different aquifer or even the same but at a different depth.

Wells with low levels of solvents can be diluted by having other wells raw water pumped into their reservoir thus combining them. Wells can be taken out of service and used as Interceptor Wells which basically capture contaminated groundwater coming from a specific source. The contaminated groundwater can be then pumped to waste with or without treatment. Also wells with low levels of solvents should stated in their Annual Reports as to which company, gas station etc. is the source of the contamination. I suspect there would be a much greater incentive for corporations to do better cleanups if their name was plastered all over these Annual Reports literally in some cases for decades after minimal "cleanups" have occurred.

In West Montrose the Region of Waterloo have been trucking water in to their reservoir for years but not advising either residents or the public as to how much of their drinking water is imported versus the highly contaminated (bacteria) raw water being treated on-site.

We the public cannot advise governments of our periorities as long as we are receiving censored or filtered information especially on important matters such as drinking water.

RETRIAL IN THE HOWLETT CASE

Today's Waterloo Region Record advises us that there will be a retrial of the accused Michael Ball. The title of the story is "Crown will attempt murder trial again". I find this somewhat bizarre. Clearly there were two adamant positions on the jury when they stated that they could not come to a unanimous decision. Some jury members must have been in favour of conviction and others not. In my mind a retrial is simply the Crown getting a different jury to come to a different decision based upon the very same evidence. Personally on a balance of probabilities I might conclude the young man is guilty. The problem for the Crown is the criteria is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and how can you not have reasonable doubt when there is no proof that Erin Howlett was murdered in the first place? Pathologists simply are unable to conclude whether she died of a drug overdose, strangulation or other causes. Obtaining a different jury simply with a different mindset regarding reasonable doubt does not seem like justice to me. Better several guilty persons go free than one innocent person is wrongly convicted. This is the presumption of innocence until proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

NO REASONABLE DOUBT OF MURDER WHEN MURDER CAN'T BE PROVEN?

This isn't the first time that I've seen a jury convict on a murder charge despite the failure of anyone to prove there was a murder at all. To me that is the first and foremost step necessary to obtain a murder conviction. There has to be a murder and it must be 100%. The case in today's Waterloo Region Record involves a Toronto mother accused of smothering her disabled teenage daughter. The tragedy of her young death is only compounded by the mother's conviction when there simply was no proof that the daughter had been smothered as the Crown alleged. A pathologist indciated that the daughter's death could have been caused by smothering but that he couldn't prove it. Seizures, lumg infections and other medical causes could have resulted in the daughter's cardiac arrest, not just the alleged smothering. I find this apparent need to assign blame very strange in cases of sudden death when medical professionals are unable to come to an agreement on cause of death. The title of today's story in the Record is "Mother found guilty in death of disabled teen".

HE SAID, SHE SAID...WATERLOO REGION DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD (WRDSB)

Yesterday's Waterloo Region Record carried this astonishing story plus photograph on their front page titled "Bullying policy put to the test". Allegedly a male custodian "displayed" a nude photograph on his cellphone of a young girl to an adult female custodian at a union meeting. Apparently there were no other witnesses and no corroboration including after a police investigation which included examining the man's phone and computer. He was suspended with pay by the School Board for four months while the police investigated. No charges were laid.

Allegedly again he retaliated by phoning in a death threat to the woman and by driving by her house and making a threatening gesture. Once again no corroborating witnesses or evidence was found. Somehow on a balance of probability basis a Justice of the Peace found him guilty of these threats and has ordered he be the subject of a peace bond. Again it seems to be all a case of he said, she said. If her testimony is 100% accurate and honest then this fellow is a very bad apple. On the other hand if his testimony is 100% accurate then this woman is one mean, malicious, bullying individual. Somwehere inbetween I wonder if his "displying" a nude picture was more a case of her peeking at it versus being intentional and furthermore if what she viewed as a "young girl" was an eighteen or nineteen year old who looked younger. Make no mistake it is highly inappropriate to be looking at nude photos of anyone either at work, a union meeting or where someone nearby can see them but it isn't illegal. Also he has totally denied having any kind of nude photos on his cellphone and there is no corroborating evidence that he did.

Something is very wrong in this whole process. He was off work for four months albeit paid. He is the subject of a peace bond. If he has done nothing illegal much less inappropriate then he is the victim here as she has severely damaged his reputation. He denies any retaliation or threats. She claims to be scared to go to work, leave her home or even go shopping. The WRDSB are possibly simply covering their butts by hiring a security guard to walk her from her car to the school where she works. If and I emphasize if this fellow is really such a menace then she is in trouble wherever. The security guard is most likely unarmed and this woman is also not even remotely protected anywhere else. This to me is a case of where the police should be doing a serious background check on both individuals. One would think that as they are both in the employ of a school board and in close contact to children; that has already been done. If both have no criminal histories then maybe it's time to look at mental health issues. Somebody has gone way overboard here and deescalation all the way around is necessary. This most definitely includes ensuring that neither is working with or in proximity of the other ever again.

"BANDAGE" SCISSORS ARE A LETHAL WEAPON?

Today's Waterloo Region Record carrys this story titled "Guelph officers won't face charges". We are advised that a nurse at Guelph General Hospital voluntarily gave a lethal weapon to a 36 year old male with medical problems. The "lethal" weapon was a pair of "bandage scissors". Really? Are bandage scissors what I think they are namely a very small scissors whose job literally is to trim a bandage to size? Apparently the two officers between them shot the man fatally, a total of six times. Wow. Were their lives seriously in danger? The Guelph Police Chief states that shooting was their last resort. O.K. what other resorts did they have? We're Batons, tasers or pepper spray employed or even considered? Have we come to the point that police are allowed to take a life to avoid less than fatal or even serious injury? How about a picture of this lethal weapon that the nurse voluntarily gave to the man. In other words it's high time that more information is given to the public in order that they can make an informed opinion and not be left guessing whether there's been a coverup or not. But for the private video regarding the Sammy Yatin death in Toronto, Officer Forcillo probably would have walked. More transparency is needed.

FLINT WATER CRISIS A FAILURE OF DEMOCRACY

Todays Waterloo Region Record carrys this story titled "Casino capitolism made Flint crisis". The author Henry A. Giroux is a widely published social critic and a McMaster University professor. His basic thesis is that the intentional cost cutting of water services in Flint Michigan put the population in extreme danger knowingly. In order to balance budgets and or keep the good times rolling for those already in the top 5% financially it was deemed acceptable to put citizens health in harms way. "Flint makes clear that rather than considering children its most valuable resource, casino capitolism considers them surplus and throwaways in the unflagging pursuit of profits, power and the accumulation of capitol.". This of course relates to the lead poisoning which will have a much greater impact on children than on adults. This lead poisoning could have and should have been avoided but was not in order to save a nickel.

MORE OF DR. CHARLES SMITH'S VICTIMS

Today's Waterloo Region Record carrys this story titled "Mom exonerated in girl's death". Maria Shepherd had her manslaughter conviction quashed in a Toronto courthouse yesterday, twenty-five years after being convicted. Her three year old stepdaughter had died in 1991 in her care and based upon the evidence given in court by Dr. Smith, the Crown offerred her a major deal avoiding a lengthy prison sentence if she pled guilty. As she had other children to care for plus her own lawyer advised her to plead guilty, she did so.

Dr. Smith has since been stripped of his medical license and numerous other convictions have been sucessfully appealed based upon his now totally discredited work. He had such a leading reputation as a forensic expert and a pathologist that his evidence was essentially untouchable in court. It has since been found that his opinions were at best merely opinions which he embellished in order to secure convictions for the Crown.

The shame does not rest entirely with Dr. Smith. Forensic evidence has done much to secure convictions when no other evicence was available. Perhaps certain judicial authorities and or police found this magic bullet helpful to make up for weaknesses in their cases. In the long run besides destroying lives and actually convicting people of crimes that never took place; this blind reliance on a single "expert" has discredited our judicial system in the eyes of Canadian citizens.