Well here we go again. First the police force in Saint John who almost killed Mr. Charles LeBlanc.
Five years ago in a Saint John location while the blogger was attending a quiet demonstation to take pictures an army of police officer jumped an innocent Canadian citizens and tackled Mr. LeBlanc on the ground being broadcast live on TV.
A a few police officers held Charles down while one put his knew on his temple. Putting 200 lbs. of pressure on Charles skull on his temple could have killed him. I truly believe God protected Mr. LeBlanc that day.
Almost like the Vancouver incident where 4 police officer tazered a man who came from another country.
From the time I first saw the broadcast from CBC I have not been able to erase the awful images of the worst cruelty broadcast from NB. The incident is believable for China, North Korea, Russia, Ian, Irag etc but not in NB. Wow! How could politician allow such actions on a citizen of NB who was doing nothing wrong. Why no apology? In NB?
Charles has requested an investigation of the episode that occurred in Saint John 5 years ago but Mr. LeBlanc did not receive justice or an apology. Saint John police do have a terrible reputation.
With all the good police officers in Fredericton this last action is tarnishing the good guys in the police force. Fredericton does have a huge problem and it's not the soldiers who do the work but seems like the upper level of management.
The City needs to change their attitude towards Mr. LeBlanc and all French speaking individuls. All minority group living in Fredericton could also be a target.
The City of Fredericton is acting like a Nazis communist country and I hope that no other City in NB will ever follow the terrible example that the city of Fredericton is showing towards Mr. LeBlanc.
I feel proud that one councilor was man enough to stand for a democratic society rather than stumbling towards communist Nazis regime.
I would hope that some day our provincial government would step in and punish any city in NB for acting so irresponsibly towards a good standing citizen who has been harassed and abused for too many years..
I am also happy to see Liberty group asking questions on this army of officers storming in on Mr. LeBlanc resident. This could happen to anyone of us in the future.
Very concerned that not more politician is getting involved in a sure case of cruel treatment towards Mr. LeBlanc.
What is more important than to protect citizens of NB from such blantant abuse from the city!
It's the "Wingnuts" - Evelyn and Sally. We were delighted at the dialogue and informed responses we got through the blog spot you gave us. We would love to renew the blog to keep the dialogue open and encourage more people to post their thoughts and experiences that are overlapping with your own current issues with the "authorities". Some people may take a while to feel confident or trusting enough to contribute but I am sure many will appreciate knowing they are not the only ones who have been treated badly by the very persons legislated to protect and serve us. We need change!
One item on our agenda is to encourage people to come forward in confidence if they are interested in participating in a class action (there should be no legal cost as we will look for contingency fees) for wrongs by the police/city/gnb against them. If there is any interest parties can send a brief description of their issues by email to canbus33@yahoo.ca and we will go from there. We are particularly interested in experiences of police harassment, false charges, falsified police reports, perjured testimony, refusal to investigate complaints, non-action by the Police Commission and City and Crown Prosecution Services prosecuting without sufficient grounds. Send questions anonymously by the blog if you prefer. Please do not be afraid to speak up by email or send your comments!
The above poster seems under the presumption that I wrote the letter to the AG. While the above talks like a prick, I agree with the AG as well. Which doesn't make me a hypocrite, but certainly makes the above...
Again, it doesn't take a lawyer to read Charles blog and read the libel law and know that the crown has a case. The law is there, and actually I don't really have that much trouble with the law, I think its good there is a remedy beyond civil law, which can take years, often accomplishes little, and has no effect for people like Charles who have nothing to sue for.
However, the devil is in the details. Of the three recent cases I could find, two were used by police against those critical of police, and the other was a public servant. So while the law may be there, it seems that it is only used to protect police. Maybe others haven't complained to police, but since the law is used so rarely, it could be true as another commentor said, that police simply tell people "thats for civil court". THAT is hypocrisy.
But so far 'by law', nothing has been done that 'shocks the community' so much that the AG needs to get involved. Most people I've talked to think its a waste of time, mostly because most people seem to think Charles has a few screws loose so should be given some leeway. I'm not sure that 'mental illness' should be an excuse though. Of course its often the case that Charles is 'making fun' of people, and that no 'reasonable' person would really take it seriously, in which case 'satire' has a special protection in law, otherwise virtually every canadian comedian would be in jail.
The big test will come IF Charles is charged. Then the CCLA questions will need to be answered (although a couple need to be answered NOW). In Calgary when the police were the libelled victims then the RCMP took over. IF the Fredericton police stays in charge of this file, then it SHOULD 'shock the community' because that is an involvement far worse than the AG getting involved in individual cases
As for 'hypocrisy', Charles rights WERE infringed in Saint John and I told him he should sue and regularly posted that on his blog. I even told him to talk to a lawyer, who offer initial consultations for free. Charles was adamant at that point that he 'go through the system' and launched several complaints which of course went nowhere.
If I had money or was a lawyer I would have been first THEN to launch a lawsuit both on the grounds of what happened in Saint John and the ban from the legislature. Those were both things that DID 'shock the community' and the AG did nothing even though a police officer committed perjury, something that was even mentioned by the judge in the case.
This stuff with the Fredericton police is far different. From Charles own videos most 'reasonable' people have seen that the police behaved professionally, even TOO professionally towards him. It was 'creepy' the way charles was ticketed by 'he who we will not name so charles doesn't get into more trouble', but much of that got blown up simply by Charles. And again, why charles bullhorn was not simply taken from him has never been answered.
That, of course, is the opinion of a non lawyer at a particular point in time. I also would like to see the answers that the CCLA has. I didn't even know there was a libel law in canada-as clearly charles did not, otherwise I would have pointed that out when charles really started the nasty stuff against the police-something I criticize as often as some of the most determined critics of charles.
No resemblance to the number of trials attended in the past. The murders and violence against women trials, the sexual assault cases against men, woman and children.
No, this atmosphere was different.
“What are you going to do Charles, a uniformed policeman asked?
Several more came to join us, all wanting something, all deceptively pleasant.
I had never seen police so curious. Charles wanted to speak to someone about what he should do. No legal aid lawyer was supplied because this would be a summary conviction, a fine; legal aid did not apply, he was told.
Eventually, a group of us were taken up stairs to talk to the Crown handling the case.
Kept saying he could not give advice.
He didn’t.
He explained the procedure and left.
Charles is a proud man.
He asked his supporters what he should do; asked us if he pleaded guilty would he still be able to hold up his head.
We all agreed he could.
In the courtroom, two rows of seats were filled with police, uniformed and plainclothes, and witnesses, over eleven, all told.
Charles changed his plea to guilty for the use of a blowhorn, during his protest against the police.
When the judge said she would read the victim impact statements, Charles objected. (Charles did not understand this was necessary for the record and no one had told him.)
The judge recessed the trial.
A female police officer, with a man’s first name, raised her hands and said ‘it’s all right Charles, it will be all right”.
The trial quickly resumed.
When it came time to sign the probation papers, Charles began to have doubts about his guilty plea, as did I.
Something didn’t smell right.
Four days later the police arrest Charles, and seize his computer.
The female officer, (with the man’s first name) is first at Charles’ door to execute the search warrant.