babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » labour and consumption   » OUTRAGE: Ont. court acquits van driver who ran over three striking union members

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: OUTRAGE: Ont. court acquits van driver who ran over three striking union members
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 12:29 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
CHATHAM - Outraged labour leaders renewed calls for anti-scab legislation Friday after a security guard who ran over three union members during a protest over replacement workers was found not guilty.

'SHOCKED, DISAPPOINTED'

"I'm shocked, disappointed and disheartened by the justice system," said Ken Lewenza, president of Canadian Auto Workers union Local 444, who was in Chatham on June 24, 2002, when loads of Windsor unionists protested against the use of replacement workers during a bitter strike at Navistar International Truck and Engine Corp.

"I was there that day and I saw what happened," he said of the incident in which a van struck pickets Don Milner, Keith Bennett and John Swan.

Superior Court Justice Peter Hockin Friday acquitted 24-year-old Steele Leacock, driver of the van, on three counts of dangerous driving causing bodily harm.

Milner, who has undergone many surgeries and still cannot walk or speak normally, suffered injuries to his lungs, heart and kidneys, a shattered pelvis, broken ribs, ruptured bladder, sheared urethra tube, damaged prostrate, nerve and tendon damage in both legs and feet, a badly broken arm and road rash.

Bennett suffered injuries to his groin, back and hips and takes medication for pain, depression, stress and anxiety. Swan suffered extensive road rash.

"That was the worst day of my life, quite frankly, and that's something I'll have to live with the rest of my life," said Lewenza. "We're talking about scabs trying to come into a manufacturing facility in the year 2000. None of this ever happened other than the '30s and '40s."

The six-week strike at the Navistar plant was particularly acrimonious. Four days before the workers were injured, union pickets barged into a yard on Provincial Road to stop two buses from leaving with replacement workers destined for the struck plant in Chatham.
***
In Chatham Friday, Hockin ruled Leacock acted as any reasonable driver would have when he inched a security van through an angry crowd of protesters.

The judge found that Leacock didn't know he'd hit anyone when, after easing his way through the protesters, he drove away. What Leacock didn't know, he said, is Milner, 41, was under the vehicle.


Windsor Star, Dec. 11, 2004


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 12:37 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe a newspaper would refer to anyone damaging their "prostrate".

Also, while I can sympathize with the strikers, they have to take some responsibility for their own safety, no? If they're going to crowd around a moving vehicle then how on earth is someone not going to get hurt? I know, I know... when the driver succumbs to a sudden epiphany, steps out of the vehicle, and picks up a picket sign, right? But seriously... in the real world.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 12:47 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fuck you Magoo. Just because people are crowding around your car doesn't give you an excuse to run them down.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 December 2004 12:55 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, have you ever been on a picket line? I was, for seven months. You get so worked up about vandalism to McDos and fancy cars - the truck driver ran over and seriously injured 3 human beings.
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 13 December 2004 12:57 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Are there steps we can take to urge the Crown to file an appeal?

This never would have happened if Mike Harris had not repealed the NDP's anti-scab legislation. And, now that Ontarians have "chosen change", it should never have to happen again.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 13 December 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Scott Piatkowski:
Are there steps we can take to urge the Crown to file an appeal?

This never would have happened if Mike Harris had not repealed the NDP's anti-scab legislation. And, now that Ontarians have "chosen change", it should never have to happen again.


Except Scott, this "changed" government we voted in has delined to re-introduce the "anti-scab" provisions. Perhaps this decision will provide the impetus and political leverage to force it to do so. As far as appeal of the decision; I haven't had a chance to read it as yet, but from the synopsis I have, I sounds like it is mostly centred on "facts" as "found" by the trial judge, which would make it practically immune from appellate review.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 01:21 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Fuck you Magoo. Just because people are crowding around your car doesn't give you an excuse to run them down.

Do you believe the trial judge was lying when he found that the driver had inched his way through the crowd? How can you pretend anyone was "run down", as though they didn't have enough time to get the hell out of the way?

Is that it? You want some magical world where the pickets didn't have to think about their own safety, and didn't have to get out of the way of a moving vehicle? A world where the sheer righteousness of their position would grant them the right to stand in front of a moving vehicle — a very very slowly moving vehicle — and magically nobody's going to be harmed?

I don't think that's very realistic.

quote:
the truck driver ran over and seriously injured 3 human beings.

All I'm trying to do is point out that if they didn't want to be injured, they needed to take some responsibility for their own safety. Obviously the driver has responsibilities too, which the trial judge appears to believe he upheld. He drove slowly enough to give anyone who was concerned about their safety to get out of the way. I know that your ideology wanted him to stop, drive away, and become a union member, but again I don't think that that sort of wishful thinking is realistic. He had a legal right to drive where he did. The pickets had no legal right to try and stop him with their bodies.

It's not like the guy went berserk chasing people around the parking lot.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 01:29 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The driver was a member of a mercenary private security force hired by Navistar to help break the strike. He is human scum and should never have been there in the first place, much less been operating a potential instrument of death. I have my doubts whether he was really "inching" the vehicle across the line, as found by the trial judge.

The company should never have been allowed to engage in such egregious unfair labour practices in the first place, but Harris gutted Ontario labour laws a few years prior.

Source

quote:
Canadian auto union leaders isolate fight against Navistar union-busting
By Jerry Isaacs and Walter Gilberti
6 July 2002
***
Navistar temporarily suspended efforts to bring strikebreakers into the plant after a member of the private security force hired by the company drove a van into a group of strike supporters on June 24, sending one of the workers to the hospital with a life-threatening injury. Navistar officials, however, have refused to resume negotiations and have not lifted the threat to bring in strikebreakers or shut down the plant permanently if workers do not accept wage cuts of up to $10 an hour and other massive concessions.

The hospitalized worker, Don Milner, a 38-year-old father of two small children, remains in critical condition after undergoing two eight-hour surgeries to reconstruct his pelvis, bladder and shoulder, which were shattered in the attack. A spokesperson for Local 444 said Milner was placed under a medically induced coma so he would remain immobile during the delicate operations. At the time of this writing, he has still not regained consciousness. Two other workers, who received less serious injuries, were released from the hospital shortly after the incident.
***
Since the strike began June 1, the 645 Chatham strikers have faced a gang-up of professional strikebreaking companies, anti-union injunctions, police repression and a corporation with huge resources to weather a long strike. The courts have granted the company injunctions limiting the number of pickets to 50, barring anyone except Local 127 members from the picket line and prohibiting workers from stopping vehicles for more than three minutes. Meanwhile, the anti-strike legislation has freed Navistar to import strikebreakers and private security thugs from across Canada and the US.

Strom Canada, based in Windsor, Ontario, is currently supplying the reserve of strikebreakers. Black-uniformed goons from London Protection International (LPI) have been hired by Navistar to protect the strikebreakers and provoke incidents that can be used to victimize and prosecute workers and impose further legal restrictions. LPI was involved in the bitter 1997 strike at Accuride Canada in London, Ontario; the 1999 Calgary Herald strike; and the 2001 walkout at ADM Agri Industries in Windsor.

The company has also hired the notorious strikebreaking company, Vance International. The US-based firm, which was set up by former US Secret Service agents and recruits mercenary and criminal types through ads in such publications as Soldier of Fortune, has a long history of violence against US workers, in major battles against union-busting of the 1980s and 1990s such as Greyhound, Pittston Coal, International Paper and the Detroit newspapers.

The company’s demands were designed to provoke a strike. Navistar wants a seven-year contract that will guarantee Can$43 million in cost reductions, including Can$21 million in wage and benefit cuts and other concessions. The wage cuts alone average Can$6 an hour for production workers and Can$4 an hour for the skilled trades, with some workers, such as sweepers, facing cuts of Can$10 an hour.



From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 December 2004 01:52 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
posted 13 December 2004 01:29 PM                   

The driver was a member of a mercenary private security force hired by Navistar to help break the strike. He is human scum and should never have been there in the first place, much less been operating a potential instrument of death.


Amen.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 13 December 2004 02:06 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that what this driver did was terrible, and that he deserves to be prosecuted. He had the option of calling for help, and I doubt he was in any real danger.

I also find an epithet like "human scum" a real detractor.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 December 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The decision is fair. I mean, who among us has never crushed three or more individuals under our wheels while easing our way through a crowd of people?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 13 December 2004 02:07 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Removing duplicate post.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: paxamillion ]


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 02:14 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
who among us has never crushed three or more individuals under our wheels while easing our way through a crowd of people?

And for that matter, who amongst us hasn't been run over by a car doing 1 mph? Who hasn't known the terror of being unable to outrun the screaming death-monster going 1 mph, and been equally unable to just step aside?

I know it happens to me all the time. Just like I'm always being beaten up by people doing tai chi, and sometimes moving glaciers bang me in the toe when I'm not paying attention.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 December 2004 02:20 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"Which side are you on?" ... guess we already know, eh?
From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 02:21 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 02:23 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I also find an epithet like "human scum" a real detractor.

OK, well maybe just "really bad person," then? It's one thing to scab against other workers. It's quite another thing to become a professonal scab-herder.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 December 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, you are a contrarian asshole at times, but you are not an ignoramus. You must know I was referring to this old song of class struggle:

Which Side Are You On?
by Florence Reese

Come all of you good workers
Good news to you I'll tell
Of how that good old union
Has come in here to dwell


(Chorus)
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?
Which side are you on?

My daddy was a miner
And I'm a miner's son
And I'll stick with the union
Till every battle's won

They say in Harlan County
There are no neutrals there
You'll either be a union man
Or a thug for J.H. Blair

Oh, workers can you stand it?
Oh, tell me how you can
Will you be a lousy scab
Or will you be a man?

Don't scab for the bosses
Don't listen to their lies
Us poor folks haven't got a chance
Unless we organize

----
As for Bush and Bin Laden, I'm wholeheartedly
against both of those spoilt, murderous rich boys who somehow never read that their God was supposed to be "compasionnate"...


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 December 2004 02:30 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The company has also hired the notorious strikebreaking company, Vance International. The US-based firm, which was set up by former US Secret Service agents and recruits mercenary and criminal types through ads in such publications as Soldier of Fortune, has a long history of violence against US workers, in major battles against union-busting of the 1980s and 1990s such as Greyhound, Pittston Coal, International Paper and the Detroit newspapers.

So Magoo, I guy working for a company as described above would never be a liar in your world would he? And you honestly believe three people could not have avoided being crushed by a vehicle that was "slow moving" or "easing" its way through a crowd?

Sometimes magoo you accuse others of not seeing the truth due to their ideological beliefs. I think you are suffering from the same sickness.

And, to be honest, it is a little disturbing to think a guy so outraged by broken windows is so understanding about broken lives.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 02:32 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Lewenza and former CAW Local 1973 president Nick Dzudz were charged with assaulting a security guard, though the charges were withdrawn when the alleged victim failed to show up in court. Charges were also dismissed in court against Lewenza for tossing a brick at the bus, though the judge criticized the union members' actions.

That makes bringing in security seem not unreasonable. Why do you call the security "scab herders", and really, what allegiance or solidarity do you think they owe assembly line workers?

I find it really interesting that of all the crimes a person can commit, ultra-violent notwithstanding, the most venom seems to be reserved for "scabs" on this board.

I've seen economic necessity used to try to excuse theft, welfare fraud, drug use, and in some cases even violence. But crossing the picket line! Heavens! They lose their right to even be considered HUMAN!

It's apparently OK if they want to defraud welfare and steal from all of us. It's OK if they want to steal from their employer. But if someone appears to be "stealing" a job from a union member, even if they themselves are not a union member, well, that's just too much. Hang 'em, shoot 'em, piss on their corpses and make the widow watch, eh? Nothing, it would appear, is too regressive a punishment for them scabs.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 02:40 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I find it really interesting that of all the crimes a person can commit, ultra-violent notwithstanding, the most venom seems to be reserved for "scabs" on this board.

You are the only one advocating violence on this thread, Magoo. A man is permanently crippled and you say "he should have got out of the way."

[ 16 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 02:43 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Question: Is it not the law that pickets can stop a vehicle or person, inform them of the strike and the reason for it and then let them on their way but NOT block access?

Or can they block access legally? If they can, he should not have gone forward at any speed. If they cant, they should have stopped him, told him why they were striking and then let him pass.


edited to add

Point of fact to robbie, magoo et all. He was security as you pointed out therefore NOT a scab. Using scab epithets for him therefore are incorrect and not helpful, from either of you

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 02:55 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You must know I was referring to this old song of class struggle:

Well, no. I'll edit my comment in light of this, but I've never heard this song.

quote:
So Magoo, I guy working for a company as described above would never be a liar in your world would he?

Uh, do you think the trial judge asked him and only him?? Are you accusing the trial judge of something here?

quote:
Sometimes magoo you accuse others of not seeing the truth due to their ideological beliefs. I think you are suffering from the same sickness.

Then it must be contagious; the trial judge seems to have it too.

quote:
And, to be honest, it is a little disturbing to think a guy so outraged by broken windows is so understanding about broken lives.

Spare me. I'm pointing out that if the vehicle was moving slowly as it was declared at trial then any normal person could have gotten out of the way.

I think what nobody really cares to talk about was why they were in the way of a vehicle in the first place. Do you think there may have been a crowd, Wing? Any pushing or shoving or jostling? Or in your mind's eye were the strikers sitting safely on the grass, several feet from the roadway, when the vehicle driven by the homicidal maniac hurtled toward them, jumping the curb and crushing three of them?

I'm thinking they probably put themselves in front of the vehicle on purpose. You?

quote:
A man is permanently crippled and you say "he should have got out of the way."

Please don't waste my time with an appeal to emotion. It's, like, my least favourite little rhetorical crutch.

All I'm doing is pointing out that if the vehicle was moving slowly then anyone who didn't have a rage on could have, and would have, gotten the hell out of the way. Where were you when your mom and dad explained how you don't dart out in front of moving vehicles, even if you believe you have the right-of-way?

I'm sorry if you disagree to the point of being "sickened", but that's kind of a no-brainer, no? If you CAN get out of the way, do so.

If anyone can demonstrate that the driver didn't give the pickets a chance to move off the road, I'll recant everything and join you in calling for the driver's head, but so far I haven't seen that evidence, and apparently (and I think this is important) neither did the courts.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 December 2004 03:10 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must know I was referring to this old song of class struggle:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, no. I'll edit my comment in light of this, but I've never heard this song.



How come I'm not surprised?

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 13 December 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Uh, do you think the trial judge asked him and only him?? Are you accusing the trial judge of something here?

I dunno if *he* is, but *I* am. I think he was predisposed to accept whatever claim the corporate representatives made over whatever claim those rowdy union people made, because everyone knows unionists are just a bunch of troublemakers whereas corporations are led by the entrepreneurial captains of industry which form the bedrock of our society and are far more likely to move in the same respectable social circles as superior court judges . . .

Yeah, I think it's a class thing. The judge decided what he wanted to and was predisposed to decide, and believed the version of the facts that fit his predisposition.

And the driver, if I'm understanding correctly, wasn't *just* a security guard. He was a security guard working for a firm which specializes in strikebreaking, often violent. That makes him human scum.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 03:15 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Considering it's an obscure old union song, why [i]would[i] you be surprised? Have I said something to make you think my real last name is "Guthrie" or something? Did I indicate at some point that I was raised by migrant fruit pickers?

My father spent at least half of every Saturday at his local union hall when I was a kid, and I spent many a boring afternoon there with him. I doubt very, very much that he's familiar with the song, and I'm certain I never heard it sung while I was there.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 December 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Considering it's an obscure old union song, why [i]would[i] you be surprised? Have I said something to make you think my real last name is "Guthrie" or something? Did I indicate at some point that I was raised by migrant fruit pickers?


Yes, but of course, these are the only people who could possibly be familiar with the song. Oh, and nice (and revealing) condescension on your part, btw.

From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 December 2004 03:19 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
I can't believe a newspaper would refer to anyone damaging their "prostrate".

Also, while I can sympathize with the strikers, they have to take some responsibility for their own safety, no? If they're going to crowd around a moving vehicle then how on earth is someone not going to get hurt? I know, I know... when the driver succumbs to a sudden epiphany, steps out of the vehicle, and picks up a picket sign, right? But seriously... in the real world.


What a balanced and even handed POV?. ha ha

No, this is pretty much cut and dried, imo. The kid deserves his cajones kicking up around his ears for such rotten driving. Scabs are notorious for their lack of road skills and bad judgement in general. Pedestrians always have the right of way, Magoo.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 03:27 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, but of course, these are the only people who could possibly be familiar with the song.

Shall I ask around my office and see, since it apparently has such broad appeal?

In fact I take it back. I think I saw someone on the subway just the other day, singing along to "Oh, workers can you stand it? Oh, tell me how you can Will you be a lousy scab Or will you be a man?"

I guess I'm just out of touch with what these kids are listening to these days.

quote:
Oh, and nice (and revealing) condescension on your part, btw.

What did it reveal, other than the fact that I didn't grow up humming militant trade unionist songs??

quote:
Yeah, I think it's a class thing. The judge decided what he wanted to and was predisposed to decide, and believed the version of the facts that fit his predisposition.

That's a big accusation. Do you have anything except a hunch to go on? Witness reports? Forensics? Without something besides your belief that the judge was biased, it just looks like sour grapes.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 December 2004 03:37 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo, I think that if you're that much against unions, then in future you should refuse any union wage gains you may be offered. Bargain for your own worth on an individual basis. Or let your "customers" rate your worth with signed surveys. But accepting union wages while bad mouthing them is just a bit hypocritical imo.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 03:41 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While you're at it, watch out for "slow moving" vehicles when you cross the street, too. Because if you get hit by one, dragged forty feet and permanently disabled as a consequence, it surely must be your own fault.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 03:50 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Magoo, I think that if you're that much against unions, then in future you should refuse any union wage gains you may be offered.

Uh, where in this thread have I said I'm against unions?

Was it when I was apparently "advocating violence"?

Or is it possible that neither you nor robbie_dee have either the interest or the intelligence to understand the difference between saying "If a pedestrian can move out of the way of a vehicle, they should", and hating unions/advocating violence?

I'm sorry, but I think your emotions are overriding your logic. Why not cool down a while, come back, and see if you can see how your accusation is only making you look silly right now.

quote:
Because if you get hit by one, dragged forty feet and permanently disabled as a consequence, it surely must be your own fault.

Actually, it might be. I'm sure you're being sarcstic, but you do understand that if I dart out onto the road, get hit by a car, and try to charge the driver with unsafe driving that the court may very well find out that I, not the driver, behaved in an unsafe manner?

The law expects the driver of a vehicle to be as aware as possible of me and other pedestrians, and to take our safety into account, but it also expects me and the other pedestrians to also take our own safety into account. That means that if I can avoid being hit by a car, I must. I can't put the entire responsibility for my safety on them.

I know everyone's all riled up, but surely through the anger you can understand this?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 December 2004 03:52 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I find it really interesting that of all the crimes a person can commit, ultra-violent notwithstanding, the most venom seems to be reserved for "scabs" on this board.

Not by me it hasn't.

Do you not notice magoo you are taking an ideological approach to this issue? You are excusing or playing down an assualt that has left one man injured for life and unable to ever work again, as a result of an action taken by a person paid to break picket lines, or an enforcer, thug, goon, or choose your own adjective. We are not talking about someone unaccustomed to picket lines who suddenly found themselves crossing an unexpected and hostile line. We are talking about a professional.

And if you can lose your perspective on this and argue it from an ideoligical perspective, then you are hardly in a position to criticize others for doing the same.

In fact doing so is what we call hypocrisy. I am not used to that from you magoo. Or maybe I'm just not reading you often enough.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 03:58 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We are not talking about someone unaccustomed to picket lines who suddenly found themselves crossing an unexpected and hostile line. We are talking about a professional.

Are we? Was he experienced? Was he awell trained professional? was he new? inexperienced?

I know v ery little about this case but that would have a bearing on things


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 03:59 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think Magoo's full of crap when he talks about how the picketers should have gotten out of the way. Hello, it's a PICKET. Picketers block the entrance to driveways and entrances. That's the whole point. So, I'm sorry, but you can't consider it a reasonable countermeasure to just run them down with a fucking CAR. Give me a break.

On the other hand, I agree with this sentiment from Magoo, as it applies to people who are NOT causing personal injury to picketers:

quote:
I've seen economic necessity used to try to excuse theft, welfare fraud, drug use, and in some cases even violence. But crossing the picket line! Heavens! They lose their right to even be considered HUMAN!

As a person who is usually the resident bleeding heart liberal, who thinks that even violent offenders deserve humane treatment, and who sees jail as we know it as a regressive institution, and hates to see offenders dehumanized, I have always cringed to see scabs talked of as though they are some kind of subhuman swamp creatures. So I think I'm pretty even-handed when it comes to not wanting to demonize any offender.

On the other hand, Magoo, aren't you usually the one who calls for the harshest sentences possible for everything from stealing to murder? Aren't you the one who is usually outraged when people who commit violent crimes either get off completely, or get a slap on the wrist? Why so complacent about this one? Do you really think that as long as there was the opportunity to run away, that someone has the right to run someone over if they decide NOT to run away?

Be reasonable, Magoo.

quote:
Actually, it might be. I'm sure you're being sarcstic, but you do understand that if I dart out onto the road, get hit by a car, and try to charge the driver with unsafe driving

That's not what happened in this case. In this case, no one "darted out" in front of the driver. The driver knew they were there, tried to intimidate them by driving through them, and wound up dragging a guy 40 feet, causing him such bad injuries that he will be permanently disabled. Do you really think that happened through a gentle little nudge?

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 13 December 2004 03:59 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do babblers know about current campaigns to oppose these strike breaking outfits?

CAW activists held a number of protests/pickets at one of the companies circa 2000/2001. Is any of this still going?

I wonder too, if lawsuits could be made against the driver.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: BLAKE 3:16 ]


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You are excusing or playing down an assualt that has left one man injured for life and unable to ever work again, as a result of an action taken by a person paid to break picket lines, or an enforcer, thug, goon, or choose your own adjective.

Emphasis mine. At the heart of it, is this why nobody seems to care what the justice system has to say? Why it's being assumed (and in one case said) that the judge is either blind or on the Navistar payroll? Are we really talking about the plight of a poor injured man, or is he just window-dressing for the real goal of making some hay against the supposed class enemy, "the scabs"?

All I'm arguing is that according to the trial judge, the driver took reasonable precautions and was aquitted, and that if the vehicle was indeed moving slowly then I'm at a loss as to how the victims were unable to move out of the way. Other than the belief that courts aren't always wrong, what "ideology" am I adhering to??

You, on the other hand, are coming dangerously close to saying that whoever was hurt worse must be "right" and "innocent" and the "victim of an attack". What nonsense. If he was attacked, he has my sympathies. If not then I feel badly for him, but no worse than I do for anyone else who could have prevented their injuries with a little commmon sense but didn't. It's a shame, but I'll save my best sympathy for people who couldn't.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 04:01 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I wonder too, if lawsuits could be made against the driver.

The article states a lawsuit is pending but I dunno with the no-fault no -sue legislation if it will go anywhere sinces its aimed only at the driver.

And pickets MIGHT block access but are they actually legally allowed to? or not? That also would have a bearing on the outcome of the case


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 December 2004 04:02 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been wondering why Magoo you see this with a shrug of the shoulders and yet are up to high doe about a few items taken from a supermarket.

Can you point out the people who had major surgery, almost died and were left unable to provide for a young family from that particular action?

I agree it is wrong to dehumanize anyone, but that is just what you are doing.


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 13 December 2004 04:11 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have always cringed to see scabs talked of as though they are some kind of subhuman swamp creatures.

Swamp creatures are fine. Scabs aren't. There really isn't anything that a person can do that is more contemptuous and hateful of working people and our needs.


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 04:13 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Way to make his point Blake!

I'm with Michelle on that point


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 04:16 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Come one, come all! Be the first to prove that Mr. Magoo is a heartless ghoul using only specious logic and appeals to emotion, and win yourself a kewpie doll!

quote:
Can you point out the people who had major surgery, almost died and were left unable to provide for a young family from that particular action?

This does not mean the driver was guilty of a crime. You understand that, right? The difference between something bad happening to someone and a crime? With intent and such?

If not, I can keep trying to explain it, but I'm starting to wonder if such subtleties are above everyone. If everyone's just upset and spouting off then I'll step back and I'll make allowances for that, but if not then I'm going to suggest that some babblers go back to school and finish what they started. The lack of critical thinking skills on this thread is alarming. I'm making a very simple point, and everyone is having a big emotional outburst.

quote:
I agree it is wrong to dehumanize anyone, but that is just what you are doing.

Nonsense. More outburst.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 04:17 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Okay, but if you're REALLY with me on this point, then you have to be with me on this point the next time someone starts a thread about "heinous so-and-so, scum of the earth, who only got 5 years in jail for blah blah blah," and everyone starts fantasizing about what terrible things they wish would happen to the person, when I get on my bleeding heart liberal rant and talk about how no one, even a murderer or pedophile, should be dehumanized.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 04:23 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I have always cringed to see scabs talked of as though they are some kind of subhuman swamp creatures.

Just to be perfectly clear, here, it appears the driver of the van was not some down-on-his-luck worker who decided to take a job replacing a worker who was on strike. The driver here was a "security guard" (read hired thug) from a professional strikebreaking outfit hired to shepherd parts and workers across the line. This is why I feel absolutely no qualms about calling him scum.

Frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for anyone who scabs because I think it is a fundamentally disreputable act. But in this case, the guy wasn't just a mere scab, he was a scab-herder, a guy who actually makes his livelihood out of hurting workers in labour conflicts. It's the difference between a prostitute and a pimp, IMO.

It's also one reason why I have particular doubts about his story, whether or not he was able to convince the "learned" judge in this case.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
paxamillion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2836

posted 13 December 2004 04:29 PM      Profile for paxamillion   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by BLAKE 3:16:
There really isn't anything that a person can do that is more contemptuous and hateful of working people and our needs.

Scabbing is certainly beneath contempt. So are exporting jobs to save on wage and benefit costs, downsizing to line executive bonuses, union breaking, interfering in an organizing drive, and a bunch of other stuff. All these things are just plain wrong.


From: the process of recovery | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 04:31 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Why so complacent about this one?

Because I'm not convinced that the driver had any intention to cause harm (which is separate and distinct from whether harm was caused).

As I've said, show me that the driver intentionally tried to speed up and hit the strikers and I'll happily join everyone in calling for his head, and I'll even go so far as to refer to this as an "attack". But failing that, all we have is some sour grapes. I've been sour before, so I know it sucks, but that doesn't carry a logical argument.

quote:
Do you really think that as long as there was the opportunity to run away, that someone has the right to run someone over if they decide NOT to run away?

I'm sure I'll be going square up against everyone's cynicism here, but I don't believe the driver said to himself "hey, I bet I could plow some of them down and be aquitted!!"

I'm also curious as to what the law says about pedestrians stepping in front of a moving vehicle.

If I'm trying to cross at a light, but a vehicle is trying to turn, I'll get out of the way, even though I technically have the right-of-way. I certainly don't regard it as "running away", with all the cowardice that suggests. I consider it common sense. If the car is moving toward me and I attempt to enforce my right-of-way by "standing my ground" and the car ends up hitting me, I would expect the law to ask me how I thought I could "stand my ground" against a 2 tonne vehicle, and why I didn't just step aside.

In this case I'm curious as to whether a picket line has any legal right to prevent vehicles coming and going. If so, then I suppose they had all the legal authority needed to stand their ground and expect the vehicle to leave. If not, then from a legal standpoint, it's up to them to move out of the way, no?

quote:
The driver knew they were there, tried to intimidate them by driving through them, and wound up dragging a guy 40 feet, causing him such bad injuries that he will be permanently disabled. Do you really think that happened through a gentle little nudge?

No, I think it probably happened in the midst of many people surrounding the vehicle, shouting, etc. and a driver who had no idea what the crowd was doing.

And anyway, I'm pretty certain that on at least one occassion you've challenged me when criticizing a court decision. Was I there? Did I have evidence that nobody else had?

So... why do you doubt the workings of our justice system in this case? I'm sure the judge had access to numerous witnesses (most of whom would likely be union, not management) and any forensic evidence. On what grounds are you saying that a crime was committed??

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 13 December 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Just to be perfectly clear, here, it appears the driver of the van was not some down-on-his-luck worker who decided to take a job replacing a worker who was on strike.

I know. And just to be clear here (although I was perfectly clear in the post you quoted), I was completely differentiating between some ordinary scab, and this hired goon who decided to take out some picketers with his car.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 December 2004 04:32 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Come one, come all! Be the first to prove that Mr. Magoo is a heartless ghoul using only specious logic and appeals to emotion, and win yourself a kewpie doll!

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Can you point out the people who had major surgery, almost died and were left unable to provide for a young family from that particular action?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This does not mean the driver was guilty of a crime. You understand that, right? The difference between something bad happening to someone and a crime? With intent and such?

If not, I can keep trying to explain it, but I'm starting to wonder if such subtleties are above everyone. If everyone's just upset and spouting off then I'll step back and I'll make allowances for that, but if not then I'm going to suggest that some babblers go back to school and finish what they started. The lack of critical thinking skills on this thread is alarming. I'm making a very simple point, and everyone is having a big emotional outburst.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree it is wrong to dehumanize anyone, but that is just what you are doing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nonsense. More outburst.



And so I says to myself "self why the fuck do you bother? Self says I, I just keep hoping there are feelings and sense somewhere in there is all.
Well self says I to myself, good fucking luck with that.

From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 04:33 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*sigh* well if I must Michelle then yes

And truly I am
I try hard not to think in black and white since there can be exemptions for everything (so I can excuse some theft or violence etc) and the same does hold for scabs.

Plus this guy wasnt a scab in that he didnt have a job that was someone elses. And he was 24, so how much experience as a thug could he have?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 13 December 2004 04:39 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
All I'm arguing is that according to the trial judge, the driver took reasonable precautions and was aquitted, and that if the vehicle was indeed moving slowly then I'm at a loss as to how the victims were unable to move out of the way. Other than the belief that courts aren't always wrong, what "ideology" am I adhering to??

Yes, and the trial judge decided to believe the testimony of the driver as opposed to all those who where there. He believed the driver when he said he heard someone call him the "N" word (how convenient) but didn't hear anyone screaming from under his wheels or from the panic stricken crowd trying to tell him he had someone under his vehicle for some 40 feet. How does he hear one person shout an epithet but not a whole crowd screaming he had hit someone? How does a vehicle "moving slowly" drag a person for forty feet?

What utter nonsense.

But in this province, regardless of your past, your state of mind, or motives, if you wear a uniform you get acquitted.

As for your ideology, I think Michelle said it best. You can play innocent, but for some reason when teh victim is a striker or a protestor all the energy and outrage you have for broken windows or stolen groceries evaporates into understanding of the courts and process and tough law and order requirements are suddenly served with an acquittal.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 04:46 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also just to be clear, I'm not sure if Millner was actually dragged by the van. This is the best synopsis of witness accounts I can find.


quote:
A criminal attack

The running down of the three CAW members was a calculated and completely unprovoked act of criminal violence. Don Milner, the most seriously injured in the attack, suffered a broken pelvis, a broken arm and severe internal injuries requiring hours of surgery. According to witnesses, after the van’s front tires had rolled over Milner, the van stopped, only to accelerate and pass over Milner with the back tires. It then sped off. The driver Steele Leacock, has been charged with dangerous driving.


Link.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 04:48 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As for your ideology, I think Michelle said it best. You can play innocent, but for some reason when teh victim is a striker or a protestor all the energy and outrage you have for broken windows or stolen groceries evaporates into understanding of the courts and process and tough law and order requirements are suddenly served with an acquittal.


Except the union officials were liekwise acquitted on assault and vandalism charges so he is being even handed about it here. Both sides did bad, both sides were acquitted


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 December 2004 04:50 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So... why do you doubt the workings of our justice system in this case? I'm sure the judge had access to numerous witnesses (most of whom would likely be union, not management) and any forensic evidence.

So did this judge not have access to full disclosure?

I disagree with the verdict in both cases but wonder how you can argue so differently for each.

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=2&t=006265&p=


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 13 December 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh give me a break, Bacchus. First of all, the union officials were apparently only acquitted because the alleged victims of the assault failed to show up to testify.

Second, we aren't talking about those union officials. We are talking about Don Milner, a rank and file worker and father of two, who just happened to be walking the picket line when some thug decided to teach the workers a lesson by plowing his vehicle through.

EDIT: Thank you for the wonderful cross-reference of Magoo's other comments. I wonder if we'll see him back here to justify his hypocrisy?

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 13 December 2004 04:52 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm making a very simple point, and everyone is having a big emotional outburst.

Well, yes. I haven't been a victim of violence on a picket line, but I have been threatened, and I know a number of people that have been run over by cars and trucks as they were picketing.

I believe very strongly in the Wobbly slogan, "An injury to one is an injury to all". So when some neo-Pinkerton severely injures a sister or brother and gets backed up by the courts, I think it's work getting emotional about. Other folks here believ a lot more strongly in the rights of wealth and the inherent justice of the courts, so where's the common ground?


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 13 December 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Oh give me a break, Bacchus. First of all, the union officials were apparently only acquitted because the alleged victims of the assault failed to show up to testify.

Ok so the violent thugs that should have gone to jail for assault didnt and the violent thug that ran over people didnt go to jail either. Does that sound better?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 13 December 2004 05:04 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
This management versus union talk is nice. This scab versus hired gun or hired mercenary talk is nice.

But I am a little confused. Is the issue here that a vehicular assault went unpunished. Or is it that a vehicular assault against a union member on a picket line went unpunished.

The issue here is that regardless of the "reasons behind the assualt" an assault occured and the perp got off.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 13 December 2004 05:05 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by johnpauljones:

The issue here is that regardless of the "reasons behind the assualt" an assault occured and the perp got off.


Agreed!


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 05:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes, and the trial judge decided to believe the testimony of the driver as opposed to all those who where there.

Yes, that's actually common in trials. Both sides say contradictory things, but the judge or jury elects to believe only one of them.

quote:
But in this province, regardless of your past, your state of mind, or motives, if you wear a uniform you get acquitted.

I recognize that I can't argue you out of your cynicism, since you'll just argue that you're only "being realistic", whereas I'm "being naive". It's an interesting rhetorical gambit in that it leaves both of us with nowhere to go.

quote:
As for your ideology, I think Michelle said it best.

And as for my responses to that, I think I said it best. I haven't been convinced by anything concrete that a crime was committed. Injuries, sure. But we're talking about a legal crime, which has specific requirements above and beyond someone getting hurt.

ed'd to add:

quote:
I disagree with the verdict in both cases but wonder how you can argue so differently for each.

Fair question.

In the case of the abusive parents it seemed to me that neither side was disputing that a crime had been committed. There's no chance the boys were accidentally abused for most of their childhood. I disagreed with the length of the sentence, and an appeal has apparently agreed.

In this case, all I'm disputing is whether a crime was indeed committed. The court doesn't think so, but I'm open to the possibility that it was. So far though, there's nothing other than suspicion to suggest so.

If the driver were found guilty and sentenced to two weeks in the local hootch, I'd find that far too lenient, if the driver were guilty and would likely be suggesting that something more would be in order. As he's been acquitted, there's no sentence to criticize.

[ 13 December 2004: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
fairydust
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7560

posted 13 December 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for fairydust     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I find ludicrous, is apparently the driver who was driving slowly at one mile per hour could NOT have noticed the fact that he ran over three people. Just think about it for a second. If he was driving slowly he would have to feel the vehicle driving over three bodies. Also if he was driving that slow why could he not have stopped after driving over the first person? I can't believe this driver could leave the scene not aware that he just ran over three people. I agree that the judge was totally wrong in his decision, and yes Magoo many judges make decisions not based on evidence, but on their personal beliefs which can taint a verdict. Unfortunatletly the justice system is not always the place to get justice. It often hinges on who has the most money or influence.
From: everywhere | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 December 2004 07:58 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Had that blackleg run into those strikers while riding a bike without a helmet, Magoo would be calling for his head on a platter.

Contradictory? Yes, but then the only thing he seems to unequivocally stand for is obedience.

And yes, lagatta, we know which side he's on.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 13 December 2004 08:18 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
In case some babblers were annoyed by the "men" or "scabs" dichotomy of the Harlan County song (a woman wrote it, and the vast majority of strikers were men - lives were very harsh, and both men and women toiled whenever they weren't sleeping) here is a similar famous labour song from Italian women strikers. Like Bread and Roses, it starts out almost shy to be in struggle "although we are women" and says they are fighting out of love for their children (though to be fair male strikers' songs also say that...)

It goes on to decry the "crumiri con padroni" (scabs with the bosses) saying that liberty does not come without unity and that the lot of them are worth killing (whether this is literal or a figure of speech?) and talks about the "signorini" (little lords, petits messieurs (signorino was often used for young men of bourgeois families - in modern times a signorino is a male spinster)
E voialtri signoroni
che ci avete tanto orgoglio
abbassate la superbia
e aprite il portafoglio

You proud signorini
drop your false pride
and open your pocketbooks!

SEBBEN CHE SIAMO DONNE

Sebben che siamo donne
paura non abbiamo
per amor dei nostri figli
per amor dei nostri figli
sebben che siamo donne
paura non abbiamo
per amor dei nostri figli
in lega ci mettiamo

A oili' oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori, e noialtri lavoratori
A oili' oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori vogliamo la liberta'

E la liberta' non viene
perche' non c'e' l'unione
crumiri col padrone
crumiri col padrone
E la liberta' non viene
perche' non c'e' l'unione
crumiri col padrone
son tutti da ammazzar

A oi'li' oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori, e noialtri lavoratori
A oili' oi'li' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori vogliamo la liberta'

Sebben che siamo donne
paura non abbiamo
abbiam delle belle buone lingue
abbiam delle belle buone lingue
Sebben che siamo donne
paura non abbiamo
abbiam delle belle buone lingue
e ben ci difendiamo

A oili' oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori, e noialtri lavoratori
A oili' oi'li' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori vogliamo la liberta'

E voialtri signoroni
che ci avete tanto orgoglio
abbassate la superbia
abbassate la superbia
E voialtri signoroni
che ci avete tanto orgoglio
abbassate la superbia
e aprite il portafoglio

A oili' oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori, e noialtri lavoratori
oili' oili oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori... i vuruma vess paga'
A oili oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori e noialtri lavoratori
A oili oili' oila' e la lega la crescera'
e noialtri lavoratori vogliamo la liberta'


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 December 2004 09:33 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You can hear the voice (I believe she was in her 80s or 90s when she recorded this) of Florence Reese singing "Which Side are You On?" on a relatively new (1997) CD called Coal Mining Women.
From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 13 December 2004 11:17 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Had that blackleg run into those strikers while riding a bike without a helmet, Magoo would be calling for his head on a platter.

Only if he were found guilty of such.

quote:
Contradictory? Yes

See above.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 13 December 2004 11:23 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Only if he were found guilty of such.

So if the judge had convicted the scab you'd be on the strikers' side?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 01:05 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As I said above, if anyone can demonstrate that the judge was wrong, I'll join the call for the driver's head. The case obviously hangs on "did he mean to run over picketers or didn't he?". The court seemed to believe he didn't.

I'm open to the possibility that he may have, but I'm not going to take that position out of some kind of union solidarity, or because of blanket suspicions that even the poorly paid grunts of "big business" are somehow immune from prosecution.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Phonicidal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7635

posted 14 December 2004 01:24 AM      Profile for Phonicidal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
As I said above, if anyone can demonstrate that the judge was wrong, I'll join the call for the driver's head. The case obviously hangs on "did he mean to run over picketers or didn't he?". The court seemed to believe he didn't.
Exactly! It's pure arraogance to assume that we have more evidence, or are smarter, or more just, than the Judge in the case.

The case isn't about if the replacement worker had the right to be there (he did). It's not about whether the strikers have the right to infringe upon anybody else's freedom of movement (they didn't). It's a question of whether there was enough evidence to suggest that the man was guilty of a crime. The judge said he wasn't. Now, maybe the driver would be liable in a civil case. But, until he's found guilty of anything, he desevres the benefit of the doubt. Actually, now that he was aquitted, he deserves more than that.


From: Thornhill, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 December 2004 02:41 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Uh, where in this thread have I said I'm against unions?

Was it when I was apparently "advocating violence"?

Or is it possible that neither you nor robbie_dee have either the interest or the intelligence to understand the difference between saying "If a pedestrian can move out of the way of a vehicle, they should", and hating unions/advocating violence?

I'm sorry, but I think your emotions are overriding your logic. Why not cool down a while, come back, and see if you can see how your accusation is only making you look silly right now.



By the same token, Magoo, do neither the driver or you have the intelligence to realize you've just run over a person ?. I mean, how can anyone be so stupid as to not realize they're about to drive over another human being ?.

Did the deaf, dumb and blind driver have his head up his ass at the time or what ?.

Don't you think that the driver at least deserves a drivers ed class or twit of the year award ?. We know the person run over was a union member, but don't you think his serious injuries merit some consideration by the court ?.

And is the scabby bad driver even capable of working with others without injuring them ?. Oops ?.

Is being a lousy driver something they teach at scab school ?.

More insight into this tragedy is needed from the pro-union Magoo, I think.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 December 2004 11:53 AM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or was he scared? Paniced because of little or no training or experience?


Do we even know?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 14 December 2004 11:59 AM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The fucker shouldn't have even been there. And the fact that the state is willing to absolve him from responsibility for the consequences of his action only devalues Don Milner's suffering and debases all of us.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 December 2004 12:02 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by robbie_dee:
The fucker shouldn't have even been there. And the fact that the state is willing to absolve him from responsibility for the consequences of his action only devalues Don Milner's suffering and debases all of us.


Robbie I asked this earlier but thought I should again. Are your more mad that this vehicular assualt went unpunished or that a vehicular assault against a union member went un-punished?

This story sucks. The judge it appears to me was wrong. But you know what, this thread title is wrong IMHO. It should be driver who ran over three people is aquited.

The issue is that someone charged with vehicular assault got off. The story is not who the victom is or what he did for a living or the circumstances.

Also Robbie just a point of info it is not the state but the crown that let him off. Your profile lists a zip code which i beleive is for OK City if I read the number right. Just a little pro-canadian anti american thing

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 14 December 2004 12:10 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The issue is that someone charged with vehicular assault got off. The story is not who the victom is or what he did for a living or the circumstances.

Well, the thing is, its the circumstances of the labour dispute that allowed this horrible incident to happen, and (I believe)also influenced the judge to view the evidence differently than he would have under other circumstances.

That's why I think we have to pay attention to (1) the fact that it was a labour dispute, (2) the reckless way the company behaved during this labour dispute, including bringing in neo-Pinkerton thugs to intimidate workers, (3) the fact that the culprit here was one of those neo-Pinkerton thugs, (4) the fact that the previous Harris government invited this to happen by repealing Rae's antiscab laws, which were introduced precisely to prevent picket line violence of all kinds.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 December 2004 12:18 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone heard if the crown is going to appeal. And if possible grounds for an appeal are known yet?

It seems that since this was vehicular assualt - and although i disagree with Robbie Dee that surrounding history is what makes this case important - an assualt like this should be appealed.

Has either Bently or Bryant spoken about this yet.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 01:08 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By the same token, Magoo, do neither the driver or you have the intelligence to realize you've just run over a person ?

But I haven't run over a person.

quote:
Did the deaf, dumb and blind driver have his head up his ass at the time or what ?

Apparently not. Apparently he acted responsibly under the circumstances. If you're honest enough to care about this as much as you're pretending to, why aren't you curious about those circumstances. Were there picketers all around his van? Were they banging, yelling or rocking it? Were people in one of his blind spots?

We don't know, but more importantly you don't care. You've already done an end run around our justice system and judged him yourself, with absolutely no evidence or sworn testimony whatsoever. And why would you do this? Because by your reckoning he's a "scab". Christ, you can't even use the word properly and you're judging him.

Hint: he'd be a "scab" if he were there to take the place of a unionized worker. He wasn't. He was basically a bus driver. I know it's fun to pretend he's some kind of black-clad goon with a baseball bat there to break up the union meeting, like some deleted scene from C.H.U.D., but the fact is he drove a van. He's not public enemy #1. He's not a criminal mastermind. At best, if you really feel the need to, you could regard him as some kind of symbol of management and a lightning rod for your anger.

quote:
And is the scabby bad driver even capable of working with others without injuring them ?. Oops ?

That's the "real" crime here, isn't it? Who he worked for, why he was there, and the whole "injured some humans" is just a diversion, or a convenient piece of pathos to introduce when convenient. But look at your sentence, and look at your judgement of the guy. Your kneejerk reaction makes me very very glad for due process.

Given your druthers, you'd be out back building a gallows for him and every other "neo-pinkerton goon", wouldn't you?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 14 December 2004 01:20 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Given your druthers, you'd probably have been happy to mow down the union member with your own car, Magoo. You're a real piece of work.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 December 2004 01:37 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oooh good comeback

So essentially Magoo is correct and it doesnt matter what the facts are so long as the 'thug from the corp office' gets punished?


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 December 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That's a lot of hot air over a bad driver who struck not one, but three unionized picketers with his vehicle that day, Magoo. And there was at least one witness to the assault, according to that article.

The scab chauffer should have been fined for sheer stupidity if not for being a menace to pedestrians. Maybe the twit will apply for a job as school bus driver in your neck of the woods sometime, Magoo.

Imagine his road rage and impatience with pedestrians half an adult in size ?.

He should have his Pinkerton wannabe membership bumped up to gold status, for sure.

The law upholds its image for being ass in the eyes of the public, once again.

When Magoo isn't defending the rights of the Bush crime family to prop up Nazi war criminals on this web site, he's defending the rights of scab chauffers to run over striking workers. But he refuses to admit that he is against unions in principle and all the while accepting union wages.
As Magoo's semi-literate friend in the outhouse said relatively recently, "If they're not with us, then they're against us."

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 02:26 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
He should have his Pinkerton wannabe membership bumped up to gold status, for sure.

Even as you're being accused of judging the driver on his politics and not his crime, you just can't help yourself, can you?

LOL!

Keep making hay, man. Keep making hay. Maybe you can work your little speech about child mortality into this somehow!

quote:
Given your druthers, you'd probably have been happy to mow down the union member with your own car, Magoo.

I don't drive, robbie, but thanks for saying "I know you are but what am I?". That takes me back.

quote:
You're a real piece of work.

Yes, I am. And thanks for noticing.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 December 2004 02:41 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And thanks for the opportunity, Magoo.

Economic Policy Inst., Wash. 2004

Note that rates of child poverty are higher in the most politically conservative nations. Country by country trends for infant mortality are similar when graphed.

Should we continue to abandon children in Canada, or should we simply abandon political conservatism ?.

And how does this relate to the thread?. The USA and Canada, one-two, own the lowest rates of unionized work force of all developed nations. The scab chauffeur might as well have run over a few short people while he was at it.

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
dillinger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7346

posted 14 December 2004 03:26 PM      Profile for dillinger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
why is anyone even talking to magoo? i mean seriously, he's obviously either a class traitor or bourgeois, so i consider his opinion irrelevant to any discussion involving the working class.

and if some people consider "scum of the earth" to be an overly harsh discription of scabs and strike breakers, how about "enemy of the people"? that's just a objective statement of fact.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
dillinger
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7346

posted 14 December 2004 03:30 PM      Profile for dillinger   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
why is anyone even talking to magoo? i mean seriously, he's obviously either a class traitor or bourgeois, so i consider his opinion irrelevant to any discussion involving the working class.

and if some people consider "scum of the earth" to be an overly harsh discription of scabs and strike breakers, how about "enemy of the people"? that's just a objective statement of fact.


From: Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 December 2004 03:32 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
he's obviously either a class traitor or bourgeois

Hmm talk about bigoted.

Quite a few people here could be considered class traitors ( born to middle class or upper class family for became leftist/socialist) or Bourgeois (middle class job/income/lifestyle)

And besides his main point is to remove working class rhetoric from this and accept it for the simple criminal case it is. Being working class or unionist doesnt make you a better or worse person. Some of the officials in this case were vandals and assaulting thugs themselves and a ardent unionist like Jimmy Hoffa does not deserve sainthood either.

There are corporate CEOs I would prefer to associate with than others as well as unionist people I would go out of my way to avoid

There are no absolutes


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
BLAKE 3:16
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2978

posted 14 December 2004 04:03 PM      Profile for BLAKE 3:16     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I love you, dillinger!

The great power of bourgeois ideology is to equalize everything on the level of ideas. It makes one nattering wanker with time on his hands or the rights of a fascistic strike breaker appear seemingly as important as the personal tragedies that were imposed on the victims of this attack or the judicial assault on the collective rights of working people.

Liberal ideology falesly positions all people as both formally and substantively as equal at all times. Liberalism in practise is contemptful of substantive equality, and practises formal equality when it feels like it.

Clearly some of us believe in that there are sides to be taken, either with capital or labour, and some that pretend that one doesn't take sides, or that one should side with the "best" or some other Horatio Algerism. One of the glories of nouveau centrism is to promote the idea that one finds the truth by somehow averaging two "distant" positions. Sometimes they are far apart, other times very close a la the so-called polarization between Bush and Kerry. Capital's power is to appear everywhere and nowhere, but still reducing everyone to the cash nexus and its apologetics.

None of this means that pro-capitalists are always wrong or that socialists are always right.

But for those of us that believe in a better world, we need to stick to a vision of transformation and liberation. We can be argued against from a thousand different angles, either poorly or well, but it is necessary to keep going and to keep putting forward a class based morality, to defend genuine universalism and to oppose phoney universalism, and try to act and speak in favour of a world without classes, sexual oppression, racism, and war.

Perhaps a new thread could be started on these strike breaking outifts? I recall some discussion on babble before, but despite our best wishes, babble doesn't eradicate these despicable outfits. I'd like to know more following this horrible judgement.

Edited to add: quote from Bacchus

quote:
There are corporate CEOs I would prefer to associate with than others as well as unionist people I would go out of my way to avoid

This unionist would prefer you keep your fave CEOs company. Deal?

[ 14 December 2004: Message edited by: BLAKE 3:16 ]


From: Babylon, Ontario | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 December 2004 04:08 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry Blake, I keep company with both types. Just the ones I like not the slaves to ideology of any stripe
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 04:20 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
i mean seriously, he's obviously either a class traitor or bourgeois

Thanks, comrade. I love being called bourgeois! It's so quaint. Kind of a throwback to the good old days when Marxism was relevant, eh?

Anyway, if being a member of the "working class" means having to reflexively and unthinkingly believe that a crime was committed when the courts don't believe that to be the case then I don't mind being kicked out of the clubhouse. And if it means that solidarity has to replace common sense and my ability to think for myself, then again: you keep it. Help yourself.

Meanwhile, for the zillionth time, the issue as I understand it is one of a driver who may or may not have intentionally struck several people with his vehicle, and the subsequent belief held by a few babblers on this thread (and surely an equal number of people out in the real world) that a travesty of justice must have occurred.

To me this sets the terms of the discussion as a discussion of legality. A discussion of evidence and proof. Isn't that what you're talking about when you discuss a court verdict or sentence?

So what I'm finding funny is that even though we're clearly talking about a legal proceeding, any attempts to keep the discussion on those very terms is being met with confusion or animosity. I've asked several times if anyone has any evidence that contradicts the court's verdict in this case — in other words, any legal reason why this verdict should be considered suspect — and all I can get back is maudlin little paragraphs about how badly the victims were hurt, or Revolutio-Jargon (tm) about class warfare and class structure and all manner of things entirely unrelated to guilt or innocence. Does nobody realize that this driver's politics have nothing to do with whether he's innocent or guilty of a legal charge? That whether or not he's a "scab" or "human pus-bag" or "worthless traitor" or whatever other term makes you feel good inside has nothing to do with whether he's innocent or guilty of a charge? That evidence, whether physical evidence or sworn testimony is the only thing that has anything to do with his guilt or innocence?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 14 December 2004 04:25 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
According to witnesses, after the van’s front tires had rolled over Milner, the van stopped, only to accelerate and pass over Milner with the back tires. It then sped off. The driver Steele Leacock, has been charged with dangerous driving.

From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 14 December 2004 04:30 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is that sworn testimony, or is that pulled from the Wobblies website?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 14 December 2004 04:42 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What do you think?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 14 December 2004 06:22 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So, Magoo, when evidence is offered up, you ridicule it. I think that tells us you are not at all interested in what really happened but again, defending a poor decision that acquitted a person, employed by an agency that is known to hire thugs, for an assualt that has left a man permanently injured and requiring life long medical care.

And then compare your current attitude to your red-faced anger toward broken windows and stolen produce and it becomes quite obvious, that you are intellectually dishonest.

You would pretend everyone here is ideologically motivated but you. But in every case you stand with "the man" even when it results in serious bodily injury.

And has it occured to anyone else that in this case the crown took a dive? Does anyone have access to the court records? Was there vigourous cross-examination?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 14 December 2004 06:26 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ok back on topic for a bit. Is their going to be an appeal? Has anyone heard anything?

I still think that any vehicular assualt where the defendant is found not guilty should be appealed.

Is it happening here?

We can argue good union bad hired gun all day long until the cows come home.

You know what their is a guy who was almost killed and the almost killer is walking away. It does not matter that it was on a picket line because in Canada today too many get off after doing terrible things.

So simply has an appeal been applied for? Will it be applied for?


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 14 December 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think its not evidence unless its from the testimony. People often say emotional things when interviewed at the scene and these tend to be the media reports. In court,however, the testimony tends to be different.

I would lvoe to see the court transcripts and how exactly everything was presented and testified to. I would 'assume' that most of the witnesses would have been strikers or people in the van.


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 14 December 2004 08:00 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Presumably, one who is employed by one of these so-called "security" companies would be trained on how to deal with this kind of confrontation in a way that no one would get hurt in the process.

No I don't have the transcript or know what evidence was presented but from what I do know its an outrageous verdict.

It sends a clear message to employers that in Ontario you can injure workers who are on picket lines without consequences.

It was the death of Claude Dougdeen a member of the Steelworkers Union which lead to the banning of "professional strikebreakers" in the province of Ontario 20 or so years ago.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 12:12 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me tell you my experience and you will understand why I asked the question above.

In the 1980's I worked for a large, national employer. In the course of my work, I was also a union representative. It was a long time ago. I am no longer associated with any union and I am quite happy being in a non-unionized environment. I am neither pro- nor anti-union. They just are same as employers.

One day, on the job, I was called into a senior shift manager's office. In that office two managers assaulted me and wrested my briefcase from my arms. Once they had it, they released me but they also went through my briefcase, removed and kept documents.

The police were called. I was off work for a week. No disciplinary action was ever taken against me and I was paid for the week off.

I laid charges with my own lawyer. I am not sure what the precise word is used for swearing out a charge.

Later, the crown decided there were reasonable grounds to lay charges -- duh! -- and took over the case. At first I was delighted. But I was young, idealistic and believed in the justice system.

In court, the two management reps and a senior labour relations staffer bald faced lied to the court. We could prove they were lying. We had the documentation. All that was required was a good cross-examination.

The crown attorney, my lawyer, did not cross-examine a single defence witness. He asked not one question. When I was crossed examined, mercilessly, with leading questions, argumentative questions, questions asked and answered re-asked and re-answered, he offered not one objection.

The judge acquitted the two men who assaulted and robbed me. He said they had "color of right" and explained "not every assualt is an assault." And then went on to explain further that because the managers believed they had a right to assualt and rob me they were not guilty of assaulting and robbing me.

I still haven't quite worked that one out in my own head.

To me, the crown took over the case and purposely threw it. And I ask if that could have been the case here. Did the crown vigorously cross the defence witnesses or did he let them bald faced lie?

I don't know. But my experience causes me to lean toward the latter. In court, people in shirts and ties who represent corporate managers are pillars of the community. Men and women who wear jeans and perform physical labour, honestly, are to be dismissed without due regard for life or value.

It is the class system.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 15 December 2004 01:57 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Testify, Brother Wingy.

To illustrate how deeply the class system has its tentacles in our imaginations, try to picture striking workers calling in the cops to bust the heads of management when negotiations get stuck.

Hard to visualize, innit?


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 December 2004 02:16 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, in places like Japan or SE Asia, if your company goes tits up or there's an industrial accident, the CEO makes a public apology and resigns in shame. A Union Carbide accident in Bhopal, India poisons thousands, and the bastards are rewarded for cost cutting measures and offered stock options and bonuses for laying off workers. What talent!.

And the bastards have absconded with worker's pension funds and left worker's without jobs while new mansions are built in Florida's drawbridge communities. And the worker's union can't touch the slimy little bastards bc the company was registered in the prick's wifes name.

Yes, I feel lukewarm about unions in Canada and the States where their numbers are the lowest among developed nations, but do we still need them ?. Hell ya!.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 15 December 2004 02:38 AM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Let me tell you my experience and you will understand why I asked the question above.

Well I remember being assaulted on a picket line by a manager during a strike back in the 1980's as well. The assault took place right in front of a cop...but of course the cop said that he never saw a thing.

It was a "common" assault...so no bodily harm done but I was knocked over. I had eye witnesses and ended up laying charges...the crown basically went immediately to the "peace bond" route.

But yeah I was left with a rotten taste in my mouth after this experience with the "justice" system.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 December 2004 10:42 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
So, Magoo, when evidence is offered up, you ridicule it.

I'm not ridiculing it. I'm asking whether or not it's sworn testimony. If it's not, what credibility am I supposed to afford it? And certainly if it comes from a website where the authors/owners/participants have already decided that the driver is guilty of a crime then this is far from evidence indeed.

Just because someone posts something on the web doesn't make it "true". I thought mine was a fair question.

quote:
Does anyone have access to the court records? Was there vigourous cross-examination?

Now you're onto something. "Intellectually dishonest" though you may believe I am, I'd love nothing better than to see some transcripts or records from this. In fact that, or some similar real information is pretty much all I've asked for on this thread. Give me something tangible over which to change my mind. Again, under the circumstances, I think that's reasonable.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 11:04 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I'm not ridiculing it. I'm asking whether or not it's sworn testimony

C'mon, now. If that were true you would have left out the part asking if the information presented was "lifted of the wobbly web site.

**Edited to add: And don't think for a moment I don't enjoy your humour most of the time.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 December 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, considering that the only other link offered as any kind of backgrounder was the link above to the World Socialist website, and considering the overall non-emphasis on facts versus opinions, or on solid evidence versus innuendo, I don't think it was out of line to preempt an offerings of dubious "proof".
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 15 December 2004 12:05 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I phoned the local paper today to see if an appeal had been filed. As of right now according to the reporter I spoke to no appeal has been filed.

I am still disgusted that vehicular assault is not being appealed. And that my friends I feel is the real crime that is being committed.

Everything else is good background but here is an example of the courts and/ or government not looking through the rhetoric to do the right thing which is condoning assault


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 15 December 2004 12:13 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If the crown was responsible for 'throwing' the case then no appeal could be filed as they would be the ones that would have to file it. Presumably the defendants lawyer wouldnt want a appeal or file one.

Outrage wont get an appeal filed, only the crown attorney can do so, pressure him


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 12:17 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, magoo, what matter the source if the info is factually correct? And how do you know it isn't?
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 12:23 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Justice can be found in civil court where the lawyer works for you. Forget an appeal. Break the bastards financially instead.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
johnpauljones
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7554

posted 15 December 2004 12:31 PM      Profile for johnpauljones     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do we factually know that the crown threw the case?

Because there is a big difference between a judge ruling against you and throwing a case.

In all that I have read and heard no one has mentioned with proof that the case was thrown.

Also Wingnut remember even with a civil case the penalty will be minimal. Unfortunately Canadian courts limit awards of damages to nearly nothing.


From: City of Toronto | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 15 December 2004 12:31 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Magoo - you should certainly be aware that trial transcripts aren't widely available online and your demands that people cite sworn testimony, etc. is just sophistry. There are a number of people here who are familiar enough with this case that we are at least suspicious of the verdict.

That being said, I am not sure whether your hope for an appeal will happen, johnpauljones, even if the Crown didn't "throw" the case. The problem is that appellate courts are mostly focused on getting the "law" right, not the "facts." If there was a question whether running someone over was illegal under the Traffic Act or not, then the Appellate courts would be able to get involved. But generally, trial courts are allowed broad discretion to interpret the "facts" of a given case, and an appellate court will only review that interpretation for gross abuses of that discretion. It looks to me like this case was decided mostly on those factual questions - how fast the driver was going, what the picketers were doing, etc. The trial judge made a determination of this, probably based on his decision to believe the security guard's testimony instead of the strikers.' Regardless of how much that may seem to be awry, that determination will probably stand up because it's not totally baseless, its just kind of fishy.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 15 December 2004 12:38 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
OTOH, I do agree that there may be recourse in civil court, and I would urge the union and the injured members to sue not just the driver, who probably doesn't have a lot of money, but also the security company and Navistar for hiring that company. The burdens of proof will be different, and the workers will have their own lawyer instead of relying on the Crown to do the work for them.

I also think, in the interests of preventing such incidents from happening again, it is long past time for the new provincial government to review antiscab legislation, or at least tighter regulation of these professional scabherding companies.


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 15 December 2004 12:44 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
what matter the source if the info is factually correct?

At this point we have no way of knowing if it is or it isn't. All I can assume is that the court heard sworn testimony, which may or may not have included any witness now being quoted anywhere on the web, and that this testimony wasn't sufficient for the court to come to a guilty verdict.

quote:
And how do you know it isn't?

I don't. But the onus is pointing in the wrong direction there.

quote:
Magoo - you should certainly be aware that trial transcripts aren't widely available online and your demands that people cite sworn testimony, etc. is just sophistry.

Transcripts and reviews often make it to the web, though I suspect it's a little early for such a recent case. And I'm not demanding sworn testimony to be a pain in the ass, I'm demanding it because we're talking about a legal case, and anything other than sworn testimony amounts to little more than hearsay.

Surely you agree that you can't 'convict' this driver of a crime based on what "a guy" on "a website" claims happened? How could we settle for anything less than valid evidence if we're discussing the validity of a verdict??


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 15 December 2004 12:51 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Can they sue? In a Ontario court with no fault and the provision to sue for auto claims already removed? Does that include pedestrians (in terms of driving, the victim would be the equivalent of a pedestrian im guessing) ?
From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
miles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7209

posted 15 December 2004 12:53 PM      Profile for miles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bacchus add to it can they take only the driver to court in Ontario or can you also try to take the 2 other companies along with the driver to court.

I do not know but would assume that you can not take all 3 in an Ontario civil suit.


From: vaughan | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 15 December 2004 12:54 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well that would be a kick in the ass. Any Ont. lawyers out there?
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 15 December 2004 01:03 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
OTOH, I do agree that there may be recourse in civil court, and I would urge the union and the injured members to sue not just the driver, who probably doesn't have a lot of money, but also the security company and Navistar for hiring that company. The burdens of proof will be different, and the workers will have their own lawyer instead of relying on the Crown to do the work for them.

Exactly. And in the case of permanent injury with lifelong medical care required, with punitive damages, could be quite a bit.

No fault insurance would not apply in this case I wouldn't think. Any real lawyers here?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
James
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5341

posted 15 December 2004 01:05 PM      Profile for James        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Can they sue? In a Ontario court with no fault and the provision to sue for auto claims already removed?

The Insurance Act limitations definitelyawould apply to this victim; as they do to any pedestrian. However, his injuries (if as described in the media) would meet and surpass the "threshold" requirements; so as long as the limitation period has not expired, civil action should be possible.


From: Windsor; ON | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
The Oatmeal Savage
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4353

posted 15 December 2004 01:09 PM      Profile for The Oatmeal Savage   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like a clear cut case of 'Corporations acting all corporationy'. The evil corporations have hidden all the evidence of them being evil, which makes them that much more evil. Sinister.
Hybrid cars, anyone?

From: top of the food chain | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 15 December 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Quit trolling, Oat.

I am also going to close this thread now because I noticed how long it has gotten, but please feel free to continue the discussion, if you wish, over here.

[ 15 December 2004: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca