In Defence of Freedom of Speech - and an APPEAL for Support

First a little refresher for you. This is an issue that began in 2008, when Orono resident Jim Richards was banned from speaking at Clarington council meetings after saying the Durham regional chairman acted like a "bully". Mayor Abernethy said he could come back if he apologized; Mr. Richards refused.

You should also know that Mr. Jim Richards was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award in 2008, and Mayor Abernethy then gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The very next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week (which had brought the resident to tears), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement, and was banned from making further delegations to Council until he made such an apology.

Mr. Richards went to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and in 2009 the CCLA indicated council's action might "infringe the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms". In March 2009, council voted to rescind the earlier decision to ban Mr. Richards. Matter closed? Not quite.

On April 26, 2010, Jim Richards' presentation supporting direct election of the Chair of Durham Region was cut short, after Mr. Richards suggested once again, in his opinion, that the present Regional Chair is a bully.

Clarington Council has refused to apologize, or to follow the advice of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association regarding the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It seems some of them have a very short memory. I don't believe the Charter has changed in the interval between last year and this year.

So Jim Richards, who has twice been banned from speaking at Clarington council for referring to the Regional Chair as a "bully", is continuing with his lawsuit against the Municipality of Clarington, because he believes the municipality has violated his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But due to the civil liberties issues to be dealt with by the CCLA after the G20 in Toronto, will not be able to assist Jim in his endeavour for an apology until sometime next year. With the elections only a short time away, Jim would like to see this matter dealt with before the current council.

Below is a letter written by Jim seeking public support and assistance for his legal challenge. I plan on donating and I hope you will consider doing so as well.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FREEDOM of SPEECH
Jim Richards

For those of you following this issue; both, those supporting the Mayor, (Councillors Trim, Novak, Robinson and Hooper) and those supporting Jim Richards and Freedom of Speech, please allow me to set the record straight.

I commend Councillors Adrian Foster, and Willie Woo for remaining committed to citizens rights. That is not to say that both or either of them condone my use of the word "bully", but only that they support my right to use it.

Two years ago, Mayor Abernethy not only stopped me from finishing a delegation to Council because I used the word "bully", to describe in part, and in my opinion, the actions of our unelected Regional Chair. Roger Anderson, but he asked me to rescind my comment and I refused. In addition to being silenced at that particular meeting, the Mayor and associates then went on to ban me from speaking at future meetings.

This was in direct violation of our rights as provided for by the Canadian Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I enlisted help from the Canadian Civil Liberties Assoc., (CCLA) and they pointed this out in a letter to the Mayor and Council.

Subsequently, I was invited back to speak and at that time, a number of councillors who understand that freedom of speech is a basic tenet of a free and democratic society offered their apologies. None was forthcoming from Mayor Abernethy however. I had already lost respect for him due to his handling (bungling) of the incinerator issue, but now, I had lost respect for him as a man, a leader and a person.

This past April, during a delegation regarding direct election of the Regional Chair, I again referred to Chair Anderson as acting like a bully, in my opinion.

Unfortunately, the mayor once again curtailed my delegation and asked me to take back the remark. I refused. Again, he would not let me complete my delegation at a duly called meeting of Council.

Can you believe this is Canada? Can you believe it's 2010? What are Canadian men and women fighting for in Afghanistan if not freedom?

I returned to Council in May and asked the Mayor for an apology. He smugly refused. The Mayor did however ask town solicitor Dennis Hefferon for a legal opinion on the matter. Mr. Hefferon informed the Mayor that the section of the Procedural By-law he was using to curtail my rights as a citizen was ambiguous, and that it would not stand up in a court of law. In spite of this, Abernethy still refused to apologize.

At a council meeting on July 12, 2010 Councillor Foster made a motion, seconded by Councillor Woo asking the Mayor for an apology on my behalf. Abernethy refused. At this meeting, the Mayor and Council were in receipt of yet a second letter from CCLA pointing out the error of their ways.

I will now launch a potentially costly lawsuit against Mayor Abernethy and the Municipality of Clarington for infringement on my rights, but I need financial assistance. "I'm setting up a 'legal defence fund' and would ask you to consider a donation (big or small) to teach not only Mayor Abernethy but all other political bullies that this kind of behaviour will not be tolerated in a free and democratic society".

If you care to contribute, please contact me at the email address below. You can use the same address to simply offer best wishes, or tell me to go to hell! You can also contact the Mayor and Council and tell them what you think of their draconian behaviour (or offer support for the Mayor if you wish) by sending an email to the Municipal Clerk at pbarrie@clarington.net

If I win this lawsuit, I will be in a position to pay back your donations. If I lose, we all lose; not just the money, but our freedom of speech and expression in Clarington!

I have set up a bank account at C.I.B.C in Orono (Account #8254931, Transit #04742) and you can visit any CIBC branch to donate, or I will accept donations by mail at: J. Richards, P.O. Box 442, Orono, ON, L0B 1M0. Make all donations out to Jim Richards (you can put 'legal Defence Fund' in the memo line). I have enlisted a third party to oversee this account.

Email Jim: jmr.naturepix@rogers.com
or phone: 905-983-5605

***********************************************
Also see: "Clarington mayor refuses to apologize, freedom of speech debate escalates" (Metroland, May 5, 2010) and "Free speech exists in Clarington council chambers too" (Metroland Editorial, May 6, 2010)

Bully for incineration?

Should we be bullied (pushed) into hosting something that is bad for our health, bad for our environment, bad for our pocketbooks?

This video appears to be quite relevant to many municipalities world-wide today. Residents are fighting newly proposed incinerators all over Europe, the U.S. and certainly in Canada, among other places. The incineration lobby is powerful and convincing to politicians who don't do their due diligence. Why listen to doctors and scientists when you can take the word of burner pushers?

Do we believe that the old technology (mass burn incineration) is without risk to human health, not to mention financial risk? Can't we use our heads and come up with something better? I've heard much better, saner, safer and less expensive proposals put forward only to be dismissed out of hand by politicians who have been sucked into the "let's burn it and it will disappear" mindset. It doesn't disappear.



So, will the new crop of politicians (we hope there will be some new ones after October) let the residents speak, and more importantly, will they listen?

It is not too late to stop this nightmarish mistake by the lake. Write to [UPDATE] NEW Minister of Environment Hon. John Wilkinson at minister.moe@ontario.ca or at his constituency office jwilkinson.mpp.co@liberal.ola.org and tell him your views on it. (The previous Environment Minister, John Gerretsen, was replaced in the latest cabinet shuffle). Tell Minister Wilkinson he must take into consideration all the research that shows considerable risk, and that the Precautionary Principle should prevail. Tell him that if he wants to be considered a "green" Environment Minister, he will not approve this travesty. Instead he will have Durham re-visit the waste management plan and come up with a green solution, not one that will likely pump another 135000+ tonnes of CO2 annually into our air shed along with other harmful chemicals, heavy metals, cancer-causing dioxins and contaminants.

This must be revisited by a new Council. Consider replacing those who supported the incinerator and refused to look at the entire picture. Elect representatives who care more about your health than their pocketbook. Otherwise we're locked into a 25-35 year nightmare (or longer).

Think about it. Should we be bullied (pushed) into hosting something that is bad for our health, bad for our environment, bad for our pocketbooks? Shouldn't we have a say in this?

Is Democracy Dying in Clarington?

Last December our Clarington Council passed a new Procedural By-Law designed to limit participation by residents in council or committee meetings. Well, they say the reason was to enable a smoother "flow" to the meetings, but in reality, it appears to have been a not-so-subtle attempt to quell the rising tide of public voices speaking out against the EFW (which has been strongly supported by our 3 Regional representatives: Abernethy, Trim and Novak).

There have been voices speaking up about the unfairness and bullying tactics of our Regional Chair, Roger Anderson (and they were banned from speaking at Clarington Council in the future). We wonder if he has been bullying our 3 into submission or has simply convinced them that Clarington will reap untold benefits from the siting of an INCINERATOR in Clarington. Yes, just like the Water Pollution Control Plant built in Courtice, where Clarington will receive less than half ($183,000) of what was expected ($400,000) in tax income from that Regional project. Tax income from the EFW Incinerator has been estimated to be similar to the WPCP, but now even Regional Councillor Charlie Trim, Chair of Regional Works and strong supporter of the incinerator warns not to count any chickens (or money) before they're hatched.

No matter what the income from that proposed incinerator though, is it worth the risk of increased asthma in our children, increased cancers, untold health risks in our residents, or to contributing an increased toxic burden to our already overtaxed, overburdened airshed? Watchdog says an emphatic "NO!"

But will the voices of residents be heard? Residents have been told they can write a letter instead of making a public statement that would be heard by Council directly or on TV when meetings are televised. I've heard that when the clerk receives a letter to council stating concerns about the incinerator, it is summarized as a letter of 'concern' about the proposed EFW incinerator, and then published with a list of names of other residents who have written of their objections to this proposal. They don't deserve separate mention like the other correspondence to council? It appears not.

Not only did the new Procedural By-Law which came into effect in January 2008 limit citizens to 5 minutes (from the previous 10 minute limit) for a delegation to Council, but it also specifies that no clapping is allowed, unless the Mayor asks for it for something he approves. And you cannot use the words "bully" or "sheep" or "cronies" or goodness knows what else the Mayor may decide is offensive to his weak sensibilities.

The new By-Law also limited residents to speaking only at the Monday morning General Purpose and Administration Committee meetings, having to miss work or get a sitter and take time out of a busy day to get to Town Hall to speak (signing up the previous week first, of course). If they bring up a topic of concern to them at the GP&A meeting, then they are not allowed to speak to it at the evening Council meeting the following week. If they want to speak only at the evening Council meeting, then they can only do so if their topic is already listed on the Council Agenda. They cannot bring a concern to Council if it is not on the Agenda. Hmmmm. Nothing like doing all in their power to limit the voice of the public.

Now they have decided to put further limits on the public by limiting Presentations (different from delegations) to a maximum of 10 minutes (down from unlimited). This will only apply to the public, as staff or consultants or upper levels of government are excluded from this limit. It appears that the Mayor invited a citizen to make a presentation on waste matters to Council at a meeting a couple of weeks ago. The Mayor specified that this presentation would take approximately 1 hour, and the rest of Council voted to approve the presentation. AFTER Mr. Doug Anderson's timely and appropriate presentation, our intrepid Council decided to introduce this new amendment to their already citizen-limiting By-Law so that they could limit the public from speaking for more than 10 minutes, and that is ONLY if they are approved to give a presentation rather than a delegation (5 minutes).

Silly me. I thought part of Council's job description is to listen to the concerns of their residents. But it appears that only applies if we agree with them on the big issues. Otherwise they don't want to hear us. They can come up with all the excuses in the world, but what they are doing is intentionally shutting down the democratic process and limiting our free speech.

Clarington, leading the way toward the death of democracy. Shouldn't that replace the present signs we see upon entering this municipality? Sadly, yet another sign of the times.

How do you feel about the methodical annihilation of democratic processes designed to encourage the public to have a voice in decisions affecting our community?

On the Endangered list: Democracy, Ethics and Common Sense

The reasons Clarington has no representation at Regional Council regarding the incinerator (EFW) issue are becoming more and more clear. Clarington's Mayor not only thinks he knows what is better for his residents than they do, but he also feels the rules need not apply to him. He believes he can make up or change the rules whenever it suits him.

Clarington Mayor Jim Abernethy has shown his disdain for the rules multiple times recently, and doesn't seem to understand that they apply to him, not just to others.

The first serious infraction occurred a few months ago when residents questioned the Mayor on why he did not represent his Council (Clarington) resolutions at Regional Council, which according to the new procedural by-law passed by Council in December 2007 is not a 'choice', but a requirement for the mayor. Local Councillors then took up the cause, which was a good thing since the Mayor ignored residents as he has been doing for many months. He came up with a convoluted excuse, citing the Municipal Act, but was incorrect in his interpretation of it, showing his lack of understanding of rules and regulations when they pertain to him. He still does not represent his residents at local or regional council, and that is a sore spot with many. As a matter of fact, it is growing daily into a huge wound.

The mayor seems to have no comprehension of what "conflict of interest" means, as more than once he has declared a conflict and then spoken to the very issue he had declared a conflict on.

It is a shame that the Clarington Green Living Community Advisory Committee has become a joke, rather than the valuable committee it could have and should have become. All credibility has been lost with the Mayor first of all lobbying for the position of Chair even before the first meeting was held, in direct contravention of the Community Advisory Committee Protocol. Did he not know what the rules were (he should have), or did he just not care? Did the majority of committee members not care about following the rules set out by the municipality? If that is the case, why should we have any confidence in their judgement on anything else? Are they 'above the rules' along with their Mayor? How does that behaviour reflect on the other Community Advisory Committees? Why was this Green Living Committee, the pet committee of the mayor, given a budget of $16,500.00 without some of the committee members even knowing about it, or voting on how it was to be spent - all in one shot for a package of 45 or 50 commercials on one TV station? How much more could have been done with that kind of money? Or it could have been shared with some of the other important and non-politicized Clarington community committees. Oh yeah, that's right. Those are non-politicized, not run by politicians and staff and that is the difference. (I am not speaking of the Conservation Authority Boards or Veridian or other non "community advisory committees")

Does the mayor realize that a Community Advisory Committee (CAC) has the mandate to ADVISE Council on specific matters? How can a community group advise Council when the committee is headed and agenda driven by the mayor and councillors and their staff? It defeats the entire purpose. Yet there are some who ask why that rule is there in the first place, and now STAFF is recommending that the rules be changed so that the Mayor CAN sit as Chair and will no longer be breaking rules. Can he change the Municipal Act too, or will he simply continue to break those rules? We know the answer to that one.

How about this Council muzzling the public, or attempting to? Their new procedural by-law limits delegations to 5 minutes instead of the typical 10 they used to have. It appears to give the Mayor carte blanche to muzzle any delegation that disagrees with him, or when he doesn't like what is being said. A case in point is Mr. Jim Richards, who was given an important Provincial Citizenship Award recently, and Mayor Abernethy gave him a Clarington Award a few weeks later. The next week the Mayor first told Mr. Richards he couldn't use the word "bully" in describing the actions of Regional Chair Anderson toward a resident the previous week which had brought the resident to tears (a tactic not at all unusual for Mr. Anderson to use), and would have to retract his statement, which he was not allowed to even finish. Mr. Richards refused to retract, and the Mayor made him sit down. He later told Mr. Richards to leave Council Chambers when Mr. Richards stated he would not be giving a written apology to Council for his statement.

The Mayor on that same night reprimanded 2 other delegations for their comments, none of which were abusive in any way. Another delegation has been told he cannot speak at Council again (like Mr. Richards) until he gives an apology in writing to Council, and this man had even retracted his statements when asked to do so.

It appears our Mayor is terribly thin-skinned. He uses the excuse of keeping 'decorum' in Council Chambers, but there was no loss of decorum. All 3 delegations were quite polite and there was no sign of the 'radicals' the mayor has lamented about in the past. My question is, if the Mayor can call residents who disagree with him "radicals", why can't delegations call Mr. Anderson a bully, or his followers "sheep", or his close friends "cronies"? Why can't a delegation liken our Mayor to King Henry the Eighth if he can call them "radicals"? Yes Mr. Mayor, a very thin skin indeed, along with a double standard. Will councillors sit still and allow this travesty to continue? Do they not realize that when you are a public politician, people are allowed to criticize your actions? There was nothing inappropriate, unreasonable or undignified or untrue in the statements made by residents during their delegations. On the contrary, they expressed their opinions; opinions, I might add, which are becoming ever so much more popular with the citizens of Durham Region. Councillors must realize they have a duty to the public to protect their interests and must challenge any violations of procedure and of fairness to the residents of their municipality.

It appears to be the Mayor who is behaving inappropriately and in an undignified manner, although he seems unable to see it as do some on Council. The tide has turned, sir, and it would behoove you all to heed the signs.

On another note, see the new local BLOG: One Environmentalist's Right to Write

Stay tuned.