Mugger tries to rob someone and physically assaults the victim. Mugger winds up dead when victim defends himself. THAT'S justice.

See also: "The grey area of self-defence"

"I got him on the ground," the Burlington man recounted yesterday. "We stopped fighting for a second and I was standing overtop of him and I said: 'Don't move. The police are on their way. I've got two kids in the house. If you move, I'll kill you.' "

Mr. Shaxon did not kill him, but he delivered a serious beating on the 16-year-old boy, who later told police he was so inebriated that night he "mistakenly" stumbled into the wrong house.

Now, it turns out, Mr. Shaxon may face criminal charges for his defensive manoeuvres"

www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=4cdedeb4-f847-4c29-9def-124c2a242031&k=16026&p=1

Before all the political correctness, rehabillitate only, soft on crime, rampant peer pressure, spoiling bad apples, drugs, introductory pot a la Chretien,.. the story would have gone like this;

"Sir ?, may I borrow your jumper cables ??"

"Oh, well, yes."

"Thank you sir. Car is running now, they did the trick. Thanks again, eh"

It is still like this in some "backward" countries.

"He said because of the complexity of the case and the serious consequences it could take weeks before such a decision." said Wong

Complexities? Punk tried to rob him and threatened to rape his girlfriend. Fellow robbers even back up couples version. I smell C.Y.A. from the Calgary Police Force.

As for Mama Bear Hat: Suck it up Princess. You reap what you sow.

If it happened as described in the Edmonton Sun, the little creep got what he deserved. End of story.

Even if they do not rule that it was excessive force some bleading heart will surely claim that the man had no right to be armed with a knife. Read... no right to protect himself.

This is one case where the parents are a major part of the kid's problem.

They deserve a criminal charge here, like failure to provide the essentials of life for their children. Failure to provide any sort of minimal moral upbringing is just as serious as failure to provide food/clothing/shelter.

...ok I'm confused...

"The stabbing happened Monday night after Kyfer attempted to rob a man, who was walking his girlfriend to a bus stop on Falshire Dr. S.W., with a set of jumper cables."

- Kyfer Bear Hat was trying to rob the couple with booster cables?

- The 'robbee' stabbed the robber with a knife?
- Who's knife, the robbee or robber's?

"Friends of the teen who fled right after the stabbing, as well as independent witnesses, corroborated the couples’ story, said acting homicide Staff Sgt. Patty McCallum."

- The robber's buddies all took off and concurr with the robbee's statement? At least they are honest.

Rick Bear Hat, Kyfer’s uncle says:

"despite the robbery attempt, he believes the man used excessive force towards his nephew."

- Force? How do you measure force when a gang of teenagers are attacking and threating to rape your girlfriend?

- and...

"the meeting (with homicide detectives) left the family even more confused and frustrated."

- Who frustrated? Me, society, or the punk's family who can't see the forest for the trees?

- One thing to greive the loss of your son doing something stupid, another to blame it on racism.

But this is Canada, where one can be charged for defending home and property and criminals walk free.

I'm mking the call on his parents (in the above post) because they obviously didn't teach his sister the basics of morals either.

The part where his friends drive off and leave him to die alone in the field is telling and should be repeated over and over again to teens and their parents. Peer pressure can and does turn deadly. IMHO, many teens need to be watched almost as closely as toddlers. Parents need to KNOW where are they, who they are with and what are they doing.

So what else is new?

When Islam comes to take over Canada once and for all, what do you think the response will be?

"Oh please Mr. Mohammed, let's make sure I don't hurt YOU, because that would be a violation of YOUR fredoms in the Charter of Rights.

Here's my throat...."

Isn't it amazing when some try to take a black and white issue and try mixing in shades of grey?

You try to kill me by strangling me with jumper cables, man you are going down..

"All graveyards are filled with people who lay without the luxury of remorse,nor second chances"

There may be a little confusion at the Edmonton Sun, I heard young Bear Hat wrapped the jumper cables around the woman's neck.

On second thought, maybe it's deliberate confusion, after all, where's the controversy and where's the traditional Edmonton anti-police lefty journalist agenda if the woman was being choked?

i agree what the would be robber got what he deserves...let's see how many times this want to be robber has been charged in the past and given a "chance" by the legal system and how that "chance" did not take .......but of course it is always us white people's fault what the native's do cause we introduced white lightning to them a million years ago...same old story and excuses.

They're wondering whether charges need to be laid?

They won't lay ANY. The little bastard tried to strangle the guy and threatened to rape his girlfriend.

If the guy didn't defend himself and his girlfriend, the story in the Sun would have read "Mugger Strangles, Robs man, Rapes Girlfriend," and then the usual "community activists" would be claiming the need for mercy upon the killer because of his "poverty-based background."

"There may be a little confusion at the Edmonton Sun, I heard young Bear Hat wrapped the jumper cables around the woman's neck."

The plot thickens.

All i can say....one less criminal on the streets!!

When I was a kid my family moved to a small town in SK that was very close to 3 or 4 Reservations. I was in Grade 2 at the time. Within a couple of weeks I had a knife pulled on me by an aboriginal kid that was maybe in grade 4 or 5, can't really remember. This was about 20 years ago. A few years ago I remember reading about him in the newspaper - he was convicted of murdering somebody in North Central Regina. I don't know how to fix this problem. But admitting that there is a real problem with Aboriginals and crime and addressing it would be a start. I'm tired of hearing about how we need to take into account their upbringing in poverty and how "unfair" the system is in regards to the high ration of aboriginals in our jails. When you do the crime, you do the time. The ratio is a non-issue. I like the conservative stance on major crimes and I hope the country warms to what Stephen Harper is aiming us. It's refreshing to have a government that thinks a little differently.

Now I suppose the Lieberals will try to introduce a bill in the HOC to ban jumper cables...

...ooops.

I forgot to add, /sarcasm off.

"IMHO, many teens need to be watched almost as closely as toddlers"

Teens = Toddlers with hormones

Joe C No need to ban cables just register them.

Live like an ass hat, die like an ass hat.

I cannot help but mourn the violent death of a 16 years old kid, even if I didn't know him. I remember well the days when I and my male peers were around 13-17, "young, dumb, and full of cum" doesn't do justice to the magnitude of our youthful stupidity. Fortunately, most of us managed to avoid serious crime or serious harm to others.

God only knows where we would have ended up if we were raised with everyone around us constantly teaching us that all the people of other races around us owed us enormous restitution.

Earlier posts said, "'IMHO, many teens need to be watched almost as closely as toddlers'

Teens = Toddlers with hormones"

Thanks, guys. But they've said only part of it. The parents of the trouble makers are what I call "adult toddlers". As a teacher, I see this burgeoning species on a regular basis. It's sickening.

I'm altogether on the side of the "bullied"--to put it mildly--real victims here: the couple that was attacked.

Unfortunately, not only the very misguided "toddler" parents of the miscreants, but, all too often, our PC public institutions side with the perpetrator. It's been my experience that the more we talk "anti-bullying"--in places like schools--the more the bullies are let off the hook. E.g., Teachers are bullied by parents and their dysfunctional progeny on a regular basis. Does administration support the teacher? Very often not. The "client" parent is taken at his/her false word and the teacher's hung out to dry. It's disgusting.

Be ready for A Clockwork Orange droogs: Here. In Canada. In our schools. On our streets. Now.

PMSH is a hero in my eyes. I hope the Conservatives are successful in clamping down on the droogs--and their irresponsible, toddler parents--who now constitute a critical mass of this sad dominion.

Calgarian,re:"young,dumb and full of cum". I think that answers the question of whether you spit or swallow.

lookout: "burgeoning species...toddler parents"

You hit the nail on the head with that one. Very scary indeed. This species are not capable of thinking for themselves, let alone make a rational decision.

All must be spoon fed by the nanny government what is right and wrong.

Sad but true, this may become the new catch phrase describing Canadians: "Toddler Parents"

Too many parents today are from the "ME" generation, and are more concerned about the "ME" than they are about the results of their actions. Too many parents shrug their shoulders and say "well they're only kids" because they're too tired with both parents working to have any energy to discipline or guide their own kids (watch TV, get out of my hair, etc.), or heaven help you if you actually try to discipline your child(they have rights). When they are young is when you start teaching them manners, right from wrong, etc., waiting until they are 18 is too damn late. By playing the "race" card, the 16 year olds' sister and family try to become victims themselves instead of taking a serious look at what their role was in the raising of the 16 year old. Using the "race" card means they want to maintain a "victim" mentality instead of being responsible for their own actions.

If some one is trying to rob you what force do you use.What ever you force you use is to defend your self and your property.Therefore self defence should should not be a crime.Excessive force, how would any know how much force is required.You cannot feel sorry for the criminal.If you play the game you must expect to get hurt at some time.In the city I live in A guy caught a thief breaking into his truck so he decked him.Guess who got charged with assualt? It was not the break and enter guy.Thats are justice system in action.You would not want the criminal to to feel bad,he has feelings you know.This is sick..sick...sick.The criminal is the one they worry about in our sick system.I would use maximum force as that might be the only chance you have.I call it self preservation.

This case reminds me of the Donald Marshall case; Marshall and Sandy Seale tried to rob a man in a Sydney, N.S. park back in the very early 1970's.

Roy Newman Ebsary, an older man, was the victim, he fought back, stabbed Sandy Seale, killing him. Marshall meanwhile, was sent to jail for the murder of Seale, unjustifibaly, it turns out, but hey, when you try to participate in the armed robbery of someone, there are bound to be consequences, as marshall, Seale, and Ass Hat found out.

How is it possible to determine whether excessive force was used? The guy was being strangled with jumper cables and his girlfriend was being threatened with rape when he reacted.

If this guy is charged, my head will explode.

I just checked what the Calgary Herald had to say today on the story. The deceased had "learning disabilities due to fetal alcohol syndrome" and had moved to the city to escape bullying at school on the reserve. A sad story with a bad ending.

Let's face it, if somebody walks down the street with jumper cables, he's bound to start something!

I'm not very familiar with Canadian civil or criminal law but could the the Bear Hat family be setting the groundwork for a civil case against the civil authorities? Could they sue the other party if their is no criminal action? Could they sue the state for not pursuing a criminal case? Any help?

About seven years ago my wife and I were living in the "less seedier" part of Bowness in Calgary. I spent quite a bit of time away from home due to work but by sheer luck I was home the night a young punk high on drugs came knocking.

I anwered the door to a shaggily dressed twentyish and somewhat incoherent white kid that beligerantly insisted some female acquaintance of his was in our home and that I let him in. I told him sternly but politely to go away a few times and then told my wife to call 911 when it was obvious he wasn't listening. Buddy was then told that he'd best make himself scarce to avoid more trouble. He IMMEDIATELY became enraged and very aggressive, trying to get push past me into the house. I blocked his progress and was able to shove him back out onto the doorstep. I slammed the door shut and deadbolted the lock about half a second before the first attempt to kick in the door was landed by the young thug.

The best thing that boy ever did was not get into our house. Without a doubt I believe he would be dead now. We were very scared and had no way of knowing what kind of threat the doped kid posed, except that he freely threatened without provocation. I knew the only thing between that creep and my wife was me. My choice would have been clear. The police showed up 5 minutes later and chased the kid into the back alley before tackling him and dragging him off (thank you, HAWC1!).

He'll never know how close he came to a premature end. If something worse did happen that night, remorse would have been the furthest thing in my mind. Protection of my family comes before anything and if some court found me guilty of excessively protecting my family I would really be guilty of living up to my vows.

Maybe the daddy and mommy of the 16 year old should have given more positive attention and correction to their son before he made his decision to become a hoodlum. His premature end was the direct result of his own unprovoked violent actions and words, race notwithstanding.

Stab victim's family wants justice? -- They already got it!

Better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

part of the ongoing problem of no accountability for ones own actions.

"first" nations are "first" to blame someone else.

I think a huge, huge part of this drugs/violence/crime problem is Peer Pressue. No matter how good a kid's home life is, the bad apples can spoil it all with intimidation and threats to join or be beaten to a pulp. I've seen it.

The real bad ones do not fear other kids, nor their parents, nor other parents, nor the Police and especially NOT the Judges. The Punks can probably recite the Charter of Rights And Freedoms off by heart.

Im not surprised in the slightest at the assbackward response of burlington cops looking at ways to milk additional charges out of this situation.

I had a drug dealer living next door who got busted and proceeded to curse and swear and threaten me and accuse me of informing on him.

the cops did nothing despite my increasing forceful demands.

but when I told them flat out the next time the godam punk threatened me I was going to split his f'en little skinhead open with an axe, what do you think they did then?

I figured out later there were 3 possible explanation for their inaction:

- they were perfectly willing to let the little prick think it was me to protect the real informant.

- they cut a deal with him to 'put in a good word' with the crown attorney if he would become an informant, and thus he knew he could vent his spleen at me and get away with it or

- having seen this type of thing unfold numerous times, they were waiting to see if they could milk additional charges out of the situation.

a 4th possibility occurred to me later:
- some combination of the above 3. they are not mutually exclusive.

here in london nothing is different.

the cops have a 1.1 million dollar lawsuit on their hands having beat up a retired millionaire philanthropist in his own home. look it up. John Sharpe. detailed in the june 12 2006 local newspaper.

so anyone who gives the reflex 'cops are tops' are woefully misinformed. and dont come down on my head for pointing this out either, THEY are the ones bringing all the critcism their direction.

they are 'tops' except when no one is looking.

the truth is relevant only when is suits their agenda.

I am in the preliminary stages of putting a web site on the air 'www.londoncopscrimesandscrewups.ca" or whatever, advertising it in the underground papers and inviting any and all to upload any provable stories they may have about cop wrongdoing.

I take it the guy who did the stabbing was white!

So, what would the story be if it was another native?

Answer: It would not have made it to the paper.

This is BS from the getgo....a stupid ass does something stupid and gets killed for it.
The racism pimps and whores all jump on board the bandwagon and do the blame the cops thing!

To what end?

Pat Patterson:

Yes, the scenario of a civil suit (either one) that you metion is possible - but not likely.

Canada's laws are based on the same foundation as the US...with a lot of exceptions, though.

In Canada, judges have a lot more leeway to look at a stupid suit and say "Oh, come on!" and throw it out before it gets as far as it would in the US.

And lawyers here are a little more antsy about pissing off a judge than they are in the US (where you do exactly that to get headlines and, thus, more clients). So, it is unlikely that any lawyers would take it on.

There would really have to be some sort of gross mis-conduct by the police and prosecutors - like evidence that they were deiliberately conspiring, withholding evidence...that kind of stuff. I don't think that any of that will happen. The fact that they are permitting meetings with the family involved makes it look like it's quite transparent.

Oh - and Ken E. - You talk about the force used "to defend your self and your property." That's another distinction between Canuckistan and the US. Property rights (in as much as the right to defend your property) don't exist in Canada.

For me, if someone endangered the my life and (especially) that of a family member, I would do all that I could to "neutralize" them. If that means disabling them only...fine. But, if there are more than one, then I would think you would almost certainly have to plan on killing - and quickly. You don't want to give the others too much time to attack you as one.

If this guy gets charged, he really should seek refugee status in the US - I'm not trying to be funny. It would be interesting to at least see the new public "awareness" that Canadians would get as a result. Might shake things up here some.

Looks like this was one of the few times we've seen true justice in this country. Also an example of evolution in action.

Should the 16 year old really have fetal alcohol syndrome (FAS), that in my opinion would be sufficient grounds to sue the mother of the dead criminal for failure to procure an abortion. I'm sure there are some grounds like reckless endangerment one could use and it might be worthwhile to sue the mother first before the inevitable civil lawsuit comes from the losers family. FAS is preventable and if women must drink during pregnancy, there is rapid access to free abortion services in Alberta. Failure to act responsibly by the mother is completely unacceptable and she is as guilty as her son for the assault that occurred.

With regard to defending property, it may be illegal to use force to defend property in Canada, but it is not illegal to use whatever force is necessary to make a citizen's arrest. Thus, if you walk into your house and find an intruder there once you have informed said dirtbag that you are making a citizens arrest for breaking and entering, if he suffers several broken limbs and assorted other injuries during the process of subduing him, you cannot be charged. I'm not sure about the legal details involved in this, but how to deal with individuals you come across in the process of stealing your property was communicated to me by a retired police detective.

Ironically, this is a situation which may not have turned out fatally if citizens of Canada had the right to carry concealed firearms. If the individual who was attacked and his girlfriend had both been carrying, then likely just producing a pistol and pointing it at the criminal would have resulted in him breaking off the attack. In the US 90+% of the times that an individual produces a pistol during the course of a mugging results in the criminal making a fast exit.

should have a gun not a knife

well I just sent a blistering fax to the halton regional fukwa... er cops about Mr Shaxon's ordeal at their hands. (see 11:43 a.m.)

attacked by a drunken punk in his own home and now attacked by the cops for defending himself from the first attack.

cops nowadays are only and exclusively interested in wringing excuses out of crimes to lay charges at anyone involved including the victim. THIS is proof.

so get off your high horse o 'cops are tops' crowd and WAKE UP to the harsh realities of the present day agenda-driven business of law enfarcement.

why dont you call the cop shop front desk here in london the biggest hick town on the continent and ask them how goes the lawsuit by John Sharpe the frail 72 yr old millionaire they found it necessary to beat up in his own home????

'cops are tops' BULL

Loki: "...criminal for failure to procure an abortion."

Sounds like you're a big time proponent of forced abortion. Is fetal alcohol syndrome even diagnosable in the womb? Might as well just abort the baby of a drunken native to make sure, eh?

Would you support forced something else that would actually help the unborn child of a mother with FAS potential, like forcing the mother to stay clean from alcohol, drugs & solvents on threat of jail? Or does that affect reproductive "choice" too much for you?

Kate, while I disagree with you at times, posts like this are why you are one of the best bloggers in Canada. (You usually put several good observations out a day.)

regarding the citizen's arrest route suggested by Loki, the rules are:

- it has to be a felony, a criminal offence.

- you have to personally witness the actual offence, not just the suspect fleeing etc.

- you have to maintain visual contact the whole time

- you have to advise the suspect you are making a citizen's arrest. (this is the point at which you can pound the living crap out of them for trying to continue to flee and naturally self defence. heh heh heh)

- and finally you have to turn them over to a real cop forthwith.

voila, your first citizen's arrest.

the rest is the part about defending your actions against all the namby pamby bleeding heart liberals bemoaning your resorting to violence to subdue the misunderstood yout'.

here's another one to try with ANY cop shop in the country:

question: if you get assaulted, what are you supposed to do after successfully defending yourself?

do you stay as the cops like so their job of filling out the report is real easy, in which case the risk arises the fight will resume.
in that case, more possibilities arise, one is the thug calls his buddies on a cell phone and they work you over, or, you smash the living crap out of him this time to prevent a THIRD attack.
if you do that, naturally the cops will charge YOU with assault (see above, Shaxon et al) because you 'shoulda-coulda just left but ya didnt so obviously ya waaaaaanted the fight'.

but if you do choose to leave out of concern for your safety and a distaste for violence, then what do the cops say? (as happened to me in october 2005 'whyjatrytagetawaaaaaay'. oh. why did I try to 'get away'? in other words as according to sargent don campbell of the london police 'services' it doesnt 'look good' if you leave the scene of an assault).

well isnt that just grand.

no matter what you do, the fukwa... er, cops will apply whatever spin is useful to blame you for the whole thing.

true story.

go ahaead, try it.

try and get a consistent unambiguous answer what you are expected and allowed to do in the case of successfully defending yourself from assault in a public place. go ahead. try and get an answer and be sure and challenge them on the various interpretations they can drag out.

'cops are tops' BULL BULL BULL

To Doubting Thomas: " if somebody walks down the street with booster cables, he's bound to start something" wish I'd said that. Beautiful. Seems like nobody caught tht one.

Bryceman-Thanks! Your reponse and the Loki's answered quite a few of my questions.

Mr. and Mrs. Sharpe adopted the children of their bi-polar dau'r. The police come looking for a grandson. The frail-looking (from the photo) 76-yr old is an ex-naval officer and the tale is a sad one from the paper's acct.
Held for six hrs, no pillow or blanket, weak and couldn't stand on marked spot, was in his sock feet because he hadn't had time to put on his shoes before the officers took him downtown, without telling him what the charge was. Later learns he is charged with obstructing the police. Leaves the station, still in his socked feet, hails a cab home, where his wife was recovering from knee surgery.
Charges dropped. Now, there is a story.
If a wealthy white man is treated like this in his own home, then what chance does a native have?
Just asking.

Regarding Martin B's comment: I am not at all a proponent of forced abortion, but I do believe in individual responsibility. FAS is preventable and the probability of FAS in children has been up to 25% of births in some native indian populations in Canada (unfortunately getting good estimates of FAS is very difficult and the numbers I've found vary immensely with rates of 1/1000 to 70/1000 being reported around the world. Also, FAS risk appears to be significantly lower in white populations than in indian or black populations).

People with FAS have low IQ, greatly diminished frustration tolerance and impulsivity which makes them virtually unemployable in a modern society except as criminals. It is far better to abort them before they are born. Failure to do so is completely irresponsible and at this time, women who give birth to one FAS child after another face absolutely no penalty for their actions. Thus, I think that civil action is appropriate.

The other proposal that has been put forward is to incarcerate mothers who are drinking or using drugs during pregnancy. Aside from being a gross violation of individual rights, this will likely only get mothers when the damage to the fetus is already done. I don't think that one is doing anyone a favor by ensuring that they are born brain damaged.(I have Catholic friends who would disagree with me on this). Alcohol is one of the most destructive of neonatal neurotoxins and pregnant women who drink very heavily on only a few occasions during pregnancy are likely to cause far more brain damage in the fetus than a woman who injects heroin throughout her pregnancy (aside from easily treatable opiate addiction in the newborn, there are no detectable neurologic sequelae to maternal opiate use). The net result of such a policy would be an large numbers of incarcerated mothers and probably the same number of FAS children and maybe even more since they would now be getting optimal prenatal care.

There is no in-utero test to detect FAS; possibly small head size on ultrasound might be a way of making diagnosis of FAS more likely. Until such time that there is an in-utero test for FAS, aborting high risk fetuses is the only way to deal with the problem.

It would probably be quite simple to get affected women to agree to an abortion; how about $10,000 and free booze for 2 weeks if you go through with it. The cost of this option is likely far less than the lifetime social cost of an individual born with FAS to society. Also, it respects indivual rights.

As far as reproductive choice goes, I would strongly discourage women from having abortions and I think there needs to be far more scrutiny of the abortion process in Canada to prevent such aberrations as an increase in male/female ratio which is the result of some cultures aborting female fetuses as they want all male offspring. Given the demographics of Canadians, healthy women who find themselves unexpectedly pregnant should be offered payment to bring the baby to term and then give it up for adoption. Again, far cheaper in the long run than encouraging a muslim 5th column to take up residence in this country because Canadians won't breed.

the case of Mr Sharpe and his pummeling at the hands, er FISTS of the cops proves my current position that cops are the biggest threat to the freedom of citizens and greatest danger to their safety of all large organizations in the country.

mafia hit men and street punks looking for grannies with purses they can snatch for drug money cant do their deed and then turn around and arrest you.

cops can 'do their thing' and then arrest you and compound your situation.

they have the communication system, authority and training in law to know just the right way to carry it out.

car theft cartels dont.

cops do.

'serve and protect.... who?'

I will be creating a web site devoted to counteracting their malfeascance by posting whatever number of documents and video stuff comes in.

dont believe me? look up the case of one al gramolini, former CHIEF of the london fukwa... er police, BUSTED for fudging his expense account and slapped on the wrist why he copped (pun intended) a GUILTY plea.

the top one in the entire organization was a petty thief.

incidentally, the recently former chair of police services board here in the biggest hick town in the country sent me an email in response to a meeting I had claiming I had agreed to 'informal arbitration'

there is no such thing as 'informal' arbitration, therefore I filed a complaint with the civilian police review board on grosvenor street in toronto demanding to know which explanation for chahbar's claim was true:

- the meeting I had with the cops was in fact arbitration, but they didnt inform me, therefore that is misconduct, or,

- it wasnt but they told chahbar it was, in which case they lied to the chair of the services board, or,

- chabar dreamed it up himself in which case HE the chair of the police services board is a g**amn liar.

I still have the email.

I showed it to hundreds of his constituents between june when I got it up to the election last week, pointing out the sarcastic flippant tone.

he lost by less than 300 votes.

do the math.

'cops are tops' BULL BULL BULL BULL BULL

Loki, excellent commentary on FAS. Band council leadership should read it for sobering thoughts on social leadership for their people. How much effort Native leaders currently give to reach pregnant mothers on reserves would be an interesting question to see answered (is anything seriously being done?). But there is no way to know if the life being aborted has FAS or not. I hope you recognize the slippery slope of the shotgun approach you're proposing.

As for the threat to incarcerate (i.e. stict monitored pregnancy) high risk mothers, the sooner Canada recognizes unborn rights, the quicker the "grey area" of gross violation of individual rights is put to rest for the sake of our children. Kids win first place in my family.

Loki:

Brilliant comments! How delightful to find another commentator to look forward to on this blog, aside from ET.

SOMAS

Martin, I think we can both agree that educating women about risks of alcohol during pregnancy is the preferred method of preventing FAS. Given the performance of band leaders in dealing with other public health issues such as contaminated drinking water and rampant solvent abuse on some reserves, I don't expect any better performance in preventing FAS. There is an unfortunate tendency of native leaders to blame all their problems on external factors rather than looking within. We haven't helped by creating a system which basically infantalizes natives and ending the reserve system will likely be required before any progress is made on this and other issues.

I don't think that recognizing unborn rights would be wise, although such a move would provide years of work for hundreds of lawyers. It would certainly make things much easier with regard to ending maternal behavior which has a high probability of damaging the fetus but unfortunately in most cases the damage would already have been done by the time the state intervened. To the best of my knowledge, there is no way of reversing fetal brain damage following sufficient alcohol exposure. The only way to prevent the damage would be to intervene pre-emptively in the case of any potential high risk mother and this would be a violation of individual rights in my view. Preventing pregnancies in this high risk group would be one way of dealing with this issue without opening the pandora's box of fetal rights, but I can just imagine the howls of outrage and accusations of racism should this be proposed.

well having checked out Mr Shaxon's web site and voting 'innocent', I just whipped off an even MORE critical fax to the halton boys.

including demands for answers why they refused to respond to any of a half dozen increasingly vehement demands for action regarding a drug dealer who chose to harass and threaten me for months.

cops in canada are WORSE than useless; they can actually do vastly more damage after the initial crime by then turning around and busting you for 'whatever' and thus you are caught in the black hole of the court cystem. (note the spelling).

This story exemplifies how rediculous the Canadian Legal Industry has become. It is tied hand in glove with the Social Service Industry. These areas of our society have become so twisted that any semblance of common sense have disappeared. How could any family have the nerve to go public about the "injustice " that has happened here.
They should be hanging their head in shame not wailing that they have been wronged.

The responsibility for this incident lies directly with that young man's family starting with his mother. The affect of drinking alcohol during pregnancy have been well known since the 70s.There is a definite possibility that the perpertrator's mother may have had fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol affect . This would make her more subject to making bad choices.

There will never be the possibility of forced abortion or forced absention of toxic substances in this country. Does anyone out there remeber the Manitoba case of the young aboriginal woman who had had a number of children taken away fom her because of her extreme drug use. There was an attempt to encarcerate her in a controlled enviroment(not a prison ) because she became pregnant again for the fourth or fifth time. (this all at the ripe old age of 25 or 26). Some rights group took the case and she had to be released because this action infringed on her human rights. You can be sure that once released she went back to the drug use and gave birth to a damaged child that is being care for by the Social Service Industry. If she had not overdosed she is probably out there regularly producing new clients for said industry.

I worked in the health care field for 30 years and regularly came into contact with families that had 8-10 children all with FAS or FAE and there was no consequences to the birth mother of these children.

The only way to change this behavior is to force these individuals to care for these children themselves.
When they can just hand them over to the nannystate to care for they can just keep behaving the same way.

I also take offense to the excuse for leniant sentencing that is often used is that many aoriginal people had a rotten upbringing. My question is "DOES THIS MAKE THEM ANY LESS DANGEROUS?"

bollocks:

I don't know what the situation is with the police in your area - but obviously you feel that they think they are a bunch of elitists who overuse their power of discretion (or knowingly decide to use bad discretion). Maybe that's true. I don't know.

But, you also make sweeping declarations like "cops in canada are WORSE than useless."

You might also want to consider that they, like the rest of us, are under enormous political pressure to do things differently than they would otherwise.

In the 90's, I met a whole lot (5) of ex-RCMP officers while in university. They would often talk about how the RCMP had "gone from a snarling guard-dog of law enforcement to an obidient lap-dog of politicians."

I don't know for sure, but they were pretty convinced that the police forces of Canada (RCMP, regional, and municipal) were suffering from the worst turn-over rates in history. People who thought that they would be signing up to "fight crime" and "keep the neighborhoods safe" were increasingly finding themselves "baby-sitting photo-radar machines to make the government money", arresting one group and not another because their political masters were trying to get re-elected, and dealing with the fact that promotions were often being decided on racial/gender quotas. The message I got was that the police forces were losing the best people (i.e. those who disagreed with what they were being given as policies).

Maybe I'm totally off when it comes to your situation. All I'm saying is, be careful about painting the whole group with the same brush. There are other possible explanations.

"cops nowadays are only and exclusively interested in wringing excuses out of crimes to lay charges at anyone involved including the victim. THIS is proof."

I think you might be confusing the cops with the crown prosecutor..The ultimate decision on proceeding with charges is the crown.In the case of Mr. Shaxon if he is charged it will be a case of the crown investigating the case to inform the officers on scene that night they are proceeding with charges..

loki: "I don't think that recognizing unborn rights would be wise..."

Wisdom depends on what you believe, doesn't it? I believe the unborn are developing human lives and you don't. So not only do I think it's wise but a necessity in a truly moral and mature democratic society to give priority to the rights of eveyone unable to defend themselves which by definition includes the unborn.

You've already given your wisdom consisting of jailing mothers of FAS babies and massive payouts to groups of pregnant individuals in the "high risk" catagory (does that include mandatory sterilization?). It looks like you're o.k. with taking away rights once the damage is done and using plenty of public money to coerce addicted native women into giving up having children.

rural roots: "The only way to change this behavior is to force these individuals to care for these children themselves"

I believe you've hit it correctly, rural, except that the care for the children must begin during pregnancy. If individuals are being forced by society into taking responsibility, shouldn't that begin when taking responsibility does the most good?

Never bring jumper cables to knife fight.

a ^ :^(

FRONTEER JUSTICE A NECKTIE PARTY A GOOD STOUT TREE A LEIGNTH OR ROPE A HORSE AND THATS IT its too bad they did,nt do that with CHARLES MANSON be we had GOVENOR MOONBEAM BROWN in office