Why are we less willing to come to the aid (or even be nice) of others?

The title touches on two different topics: One deals with the inaction's of people, the other their actions.

I think it's fair to say that people act primarily out of selfishness, and find that being an asshole is that fastest way to bully most people into doing/giving them what they want. Some go so far as to use physical violence, rather than only verbal abuse, to accomplish this. I also think it's fair that people act out of selfishness in their inaction's to help others that tend to be in these physical altercations. The difference comes with motivation: while a majority of people "would like" to help someone they see in need of it, there are 2 things that are going on: 1. self preservation, & 2. Fear of litigious reprisal by either the perpetrator OR the legal system itself!

Yes that's right, the assailant in physical confrontation cases have been pressing charges (usually after a successful defense) against their intended victim! And if the criminal doesn't do it, the LEGAL SYSTEM WILL!  Here are a couple examples: Assailants sue victims. Legal System re-victimizes victim through charges.  I also came across a conversation on twitter where my local constabulary was telling citizens that if they were to try and defend their homes from someone breaking in, they may face assault charges, and to only call the police. Here's a screen capture of said twitter conversation.

So let's be perfectly honest, why the hell would anyone help anyone else, when even helping yourself can get you in trouble?

This is the ridiculous state of affairs we have reached, when the most basic of Human rights (The right to defend ones self, family, and possessions from injury or theft) is being trampled on by Governments and their bureaucratic minions of idiocy in the courts and constabulary. However I come from a viewpoint where I am not allowed to assault you or steal your stuff, and you are not allowed to assault me or steal my stuff, and self defence of me and my stuff IS NOT is not assault.

But here lies the rub, the police CANNOT protect everyone, the simple fact is that they are a reactionary force dispatched after an event has already occurred. So who are REALLY first responders then? You and I are. If a private citizen is attacked, they should have the right to use any means they feel necessary to secure their person and/or possessions are secure! Not only that, if we see someone in need of assistance, we shouldn't have to fear reprisal by the system or the assailant if we help our fellow citizen's from succumbing to an attack!

This was the video that recently sparked my annoyance, where a 50 year old bus driver was attacked FOR A TRANSFER by some assclown who doesn't play by the rules that are force on "law abiding" citizens. Assclown attacks bus driver in Winnipeg.

Bob

In Memorandum: Andrew Breitbart.

I often think that my blog life (which is sporadic at best) is just a place for me to put my thoughts out there, and although my topics are serious, I don't take blogging very seriously.  But then you come across someone like Andrew Brietbart, who started out just like any other blogger, with an idea and a passion to convey the thoughts and beliefs they had onto others through this medium. That's when you start to wonder if you couldn't make a difference somehow, just by getting more involved, more active.

The world has lost a great voice in the fight for truth, and Conservative values today.  Andrew Breitbart, founder of Big Journalism (and subsidiaries)  died at 43 today. Andrew leaves behind his Wife and four children. Innovative Genius of New Media Dies at Age 43

Although I did not know him personally, I admired him for the balance he brought to a lopsided world of Journalism. God bless you Andrew, Rest in Peace.

Just putting it out there.

A motivational poster I made, and a clarification of "women's rights" picture (which I modified slightly).

The cult of Abortion.

I steal the title of this post from Kevin Eder on Twitter (@keder), but it is because I believe it to be an accurate description.
There have been issues in the news lately that have brought up questions about abortion cultists. One of them was When a Tory Senator said that the worst offenders should “have the right to a rope in his cell and make a decision about his or her life.” (National Post Article.) This comment was hotly contested and attacked by the pro-abortion Left NDP and Liberals, which brought me to my current query.

Why are people that condone, accept, and fight for a woman's right to kill an unborn child, so opposed to someone saying that wasted unrepentant killers should be allowed to commit suicide? Can't we just consider this an extremely late term abortion, after the potential of the "victim" is already known? I mean honestly, if you are so willing to kill the unknown potential of an unborn child, why would you defend the indefensible convicted violent criminal from being allowed to kill themselves? (Or for that matter, how can you oppose Capital Punishment?)

Even further I have to wonder how and why these pro-deathers get so upset when anyone dies if they are so adamant that killing the unborn is ok? Really they seem to be all over the board with who they think should live, and who they want to die. Support for violent criminals, but disdain for unborn children. Yeah, sure, makes total NONsense to me too.

Obviously it's not as simple as that, because the ideology that they've been fed (and gladly swallowed) has them believing that they are justified in their beliefs. The problem is simply that they have had no one to teach them #1. How to logically reason. and #2. Morals. Obviously weak minds easily succumb to warped ideologies, unfortunately they tend to hang on to them without further thought like a dog to a bone.

Mental deceptions.

I was initially going to talk about the varied mental deceptions that we as humans perpetrate on ourselves, but it seems that I have focused more on that perpetrated on students who actually pay to have these deceptions carried out on them either unknowingly, and/or unwillingly.

It started with a conversation on Facebook where a college student is outraged that the Catholic Church doesn't want to be forced by the US Government to pay for contraception (via insurance), unfortunately (and all to commonly) however this individuals implies that this is somehow a violation of human rights and women’s health. I tried to explain that not only does this not violate any Human Rights, it also in no way jeopardizes women's health. What it was about, as I tried to point out, was how employers should not be forced to do something that goes against "company policy", even if that policy is based on moral beliefs. However the discussion came down to: "Religion was trying to repress the human right to contraceptives and damage women's health" on their side, and "an employer has the right to choose a benefits package for employees based on company values" on mine.
However I have noticed that trying to tell a University students that what they believe (or are being taught) might not be the most logical of interpretations, is like trying to push a camel through a keyhole.

Now I have a couple of thoughts I attribute this to:

1. These young people somehow see their ability to accept everything, no matter how appalling, as having intellectual superiority over those of us who may take issue with with moral or social items like abortion, or socialism.

2. The teachings they are receiving could be more along the lines of brainwashing, than that of opening their minds for advanced intelligent thought.

I tend to favour idea number two, “Indoctrination”, because of one noticeably disturbing trait from both University students and teachers I know display it. This trait is that they both seem to have no option for the possible validity of dissenting opinion, there appears to be no questioning on their part that they might be wrong (or for that matter that the other persons idea may be somewhat correct.). This more than often results in their dismissal of any dissenting opinion for no other reason than they don't like it or don't want to hear it. Sure I guess it could be confidence, a strong belief in the subject, or could it be unwillingness fostered by a mentality prevalent, and passed on to them, in our higher education system which forces beliefs on students because it is required knowledge to “pass” a course?

Arguments for and against the issue aside: the unfortunate conclusion is the underlying mentality that often won't allow “academics” to believe they might be mistaken. They can't seem to join in real open dialog with opposing/dissenting opinions, and then come to a conclusion, because they already enter a conversation assuming their conclusion is the only one valid. It disturbs me because I believe that Higher Education has become closed to ideas it dislikes, leading students down a narrow corridor guided by the prevailing ideology, instead of opening the students mind to think, reason, and rationalize every issue from every viewpoint.

I might be mistaken, but these are the attitudes and mentalities that I have recognized when talking to a number of people associated with Universities on multiple levels.

The "poisonous" Native/Government relationship.

A fine list of examples of this "poisonous" relationship between First Nation Reserves and the Government is written by the National Post.  The one issue they fail to address in all their "The numbers you hear are incorrect, they only get 5.8 million in 2010-2011 for houses", is the fact that most people that read this will be paying for their own homes and upkeep themselves (and through their taxes obviously paying for First Nation Homes)! 

I agree with funding Education and Health care, everything that every Canadian expects already. But when you have to work for something you take pride in it and take care of it, and that is where handing out houses turns into a money pit because they expect it to be kept up for them too.  You want First Nation houses to last, let First Nations people buy them for themselves like the ROC.

Attawapiskat First Nation.

One of my best childhood friends for a number of years was a native boy named Hubert. Now Hubert and I would sleep over at each others houses, and I even spent time on the band reservation that he and his family were a part of. I never gave a second thought that we were in any way different, he was just another kid that was one of my closest friends.  So when I talk about reserve life, I speak from someone with first hand experience having not just visited, but been a apart of their daily life.

Recently in the news the Attawapiskat First Nation has declared a "State of emergency" and has put out their hands to the Government to finance their recovery.  Here is where I start to question the dis-service we are doing to the Native population by continuing to assist them at every turn financially, instead of allowing them to grow in both pride and self reliance. I'm not saying that the Government shouldn't be there to help, but I think some personal responsibility needs to be taken on the part of the Attawapiskat First Nation as to how and why they feel they NEED to delare this state of emergency.

I am going to regress for a moment, and look at the point of the "Reservation".  This was a place set aside for native peoples to manage and hold as their own, where they could raise their children in their traditional culture.  This seems to me to be a noble cause, worthy of a noble people.  I may be mistaken, but I believe Reservations falls outside any number of Federal Legislations, and is even given money and houses by the Government.  Which is why I question how they came to be in a state of emergency.  I really think the problem starts with the way a native mentality has changed to one of entitlement rather than self reliance, "you took our lands, now you owe us". Let's think for a moment about the state of being when the Europeans started settling Canada, are the native people better or worse off for it? Sure there were a number of problems that the settlers brought with them, but I would still have to say that European influences and settlement has improved life for most natives that have embraced it as also theirs.

I'm not saying don't help when it's needed, what I am saying is that the current relationship between the native community and Government is unhealthy, and it is primarily so for the Native community.  What I say to the First Nations people is simple; Don't give up your culture and heritage, but embrace the society around you to become healthy, proud, and self relient Canadians. I say this also after having read a disturbing stat that 80% of Prairie correctional inmates are Native, which I also believe is another disturbing effect of this unhealthy relationship, as well a number of factors/attitudes being handed down in native communities.

I don't have all the answers, but I find the problem serious enough to point out that it's been there too long.

** addition; The day after I write this I see an article in the National post is saying basically the same things I've said here, but it does touch on the subject of how some First Nations haven't any idea on how to govern themselves.  National Post Article.

Western freedoms under seige. Oct 23rd 2011.

2 stories are striking examples of what I'm talking about this week:
First is that of the "Honour killings' in CANADA of 4 Muslim women by their husband/father. This attack is more than just against the Canadian acceptance of Women's obvious rights and freedoms, but it goes even deeper when the offender's religion can influence both assistance from authorities, or recognition as a mitigating factor in his trial. Charles adler speaks about it here: Charles Adler

Second is that freedom of speech is being "weeded out" in Universities, and indoctrination is taking it's place. When Universities (Either campus activists OR University Authorities) choose to shut down events, groups, or ideas just because they disagree with them, it set a dangerous precedent for  the future of our freedom of speech. Universities should be a place of Diversity (not the opposite, as Kate from small dead animals points out), where dissenting opinions are not only tolerated, but encouraged for dialogue!  When groups of people, or the powers that be in charge, start shutting the doors on freedoms of speech, it should anger us all! Read the Canoe article on the abismal behaviour of academia here: Free speech suppressed

For another example, Islam extremists force the cancellation of a speaker in Texas. Watch here: The Arena.

Our Culture and values are under attack, and if we don't fight back we may lose that which is dear to us!

Equal rights for men!

The dictates of societal norms, and current laws prevent me from currently murdering others because they are an inconvenience to me. But this seems to me, in light of women's rights to murder unborn children, unfair and inappropriate! Why should I be denied the right to murder someone that is an inconvenience to me just because I'm a man? Is it just because I am unable to carry around the person I am legally allowed to murder within my body, supposing to be under my protection? I think if it's fair for Women to have the right to murder the most vulnerable members of society, the unborn child, I should be well within my Manly right to kill someone for inconveniencing me! After all we already know how stupid and inconvenient some people can be, and we have no idea of the potential of an unborn child, so it seems actually more logical to get rid of the people that have proven themselves unworthy of life than to kill off someone before they have the chance to prove themselves! (And can you imagine how much more productive we would all be if we knew that if we inconvenience someone else they might kill us?

Now I'm not trying to be facetious, sarcastic and condemning maybe, but be assured that I take the matter of abortion very seriously. I think that giving in to pressure from Feminazi's (Women's rights have killed more people than the nazi's, so the name is well earned) to allow women to kill children (and yes from the moment of conception they are children, they will not grow to be anything other than human being, so abortion is CLEARLY MURDER)is ridiculous, and shows a weakness of will and morals in the Governments that allowed it (Liberals.)

I'm posting this on Father's day, because as serious as it is, these are the things we talk about at our table, and when we were doing so this morning I was encouraged to post on it.

Life is no longer kill or be killed, so how can such an "enlightened" society still condone the reckless, wanton murder of innocent children? As I often say, if the Government wants to be my moral leader, they must be my moral superior. And as long as abortion is allowed by the Government, they have no chance of being such.

Bob

Cool new feature for smart phone users,

For those of you with smartphone, Mobile Barcode has a generator that allows you to create a smartphone barcode for your site.  You have to love tech!  :-)




Have fun!
Bob

So what comes next?

After schooling our youngest child through his final year of High School, today I started to wonder what was next.  The thing is I know that Drew will move on and forward with his life, but as a chronic pain sufferer my limitations leave me looking for things that can fulfill and validate my existence.

I have to admit I've been quite sick lately (a case of Labyrinthitis that is just hanging on), and keeping my energy up and pain levels down has been a continuous battle, so that might play into my current mentality.  However the dilemma stays the same, how can I accommodate the limitations of my condition and yet find something that can encourage self worth? (which is always harder the worse I feel, so hopefully that will change soon.)

Bob

Are you the product of a social experiment?

Essentially anything new and different in a culture can be deemed a "Social Experiment", because we really don't know the outcome until the damage has been done.  Take for example the "Free Love" movement experiment, or for that matter the "Public school" experiment.

What are the results of the first experiment?  What has society gained by accepting and embracing a culture of instant gratification rather than one of delayed gratification?  By my estimations it has encouraged selfishness over one of compassion for those around us.  What we want is all important, at whatever cost.  Free love wasn't just about sex, it was an ideology based on personal gratification through any means one deemed appropriate.  This included sex, drugs, and anything else that made you feel good.  With unrestricted intercourse the results became evident quickly, as is wont to happen when the product only takes 9 months.  Yes I'm talking about unexpected/unwanted pregnancies. Of course in a society where the individual's desires are paramount, this creates an situation where it is no longer fun or pleasurable so something must be done to control this as well.  This creates yet another result, abortion.  A direct result of personal desire overriding the well being of another person is abortion, the blatant wanton murder of the most innocent and vulnerable of society.  Murdering children so that the individual could abdicate responsibility for their actions.

I believe the drug portion of the "Free love" 60's social experiment goes without saying, as it is abundantly obvious with the number of shows on TV dedicated to rehabilitation from substance abuse. 

So what about the experiment I referred to as "Public School"?  And why did I call it a social experiment?  What we tend to forget is that learning is passed down, and before public education it was a natural part of parental responsibility. Now not that I believe that there isn't a place for public education, because I believe it gives us a chance to learn outside the confines of our own experiences.  However I do have a problem with massing groups of hormonal, vulnerable, impressionable children together for enormous lengths of time.  Anyone who has read "Lord of the flies" can tell you that this is the attitude and behaviour carried out (albeit in smaller, less lethal manners) in the schoolyards of public institutions.  Although there is a staggering trend towards lethality that has been taking hold, and should we not find a solution to the mentalities that develop within a (public education) society the trend will only increase.  For as much as we hope that all of our children will be treated equally, this just isn't the reality of the public education system. Not only that, but with so few adults to influence children in proper behavioral patterns, the children learn and feed of each other and develop in a more "wild" manner. 

I started this post after reading a social experiment being conducted by a set of parents called "Gender Neutrality". Read the article here.  Obviously this is going to create issues in the future, but what are they? What ramifications will this (thankfully limited) social experiment have on children that are not taught how to be a man or a women?  I believe that the way we are raised, and the events that occur in our lives are what dictate the person we will become. Already one of the children is confused, and has asked for a note to be written telling leaders at a nature center that he was a boy.

What I think people tend to forget is that these social experiments can reproduce exponentially when we introduce offspring into the equation through the subjects.  I think it's time to step back and look at what we are doing and question if it is the best thing for society, or are we indulging our base instincts for that instant self gratification.

Bob

My day in court,

Although I had hoped for the Judge to see that this law is one that sometimes needs to be broken, and does not actually endanger the public as much as the "nanny staters" would have you believe, It came down to the strict application of law which lead him to find us Guilty of running an extension cord over a sidewalk.

It was about an hour that we were in court, I cross examined the witness, and presented evidence, then made my argument.  Had I known then what I know now, I would have done things slightly differently in my preparation, but now that is neither here nor there.

I do feel like I was on the verge of swaying the Judge to side with me, but lack of courtroom experience and understanding tipped the balance in favour of strictly the facts.  I don't think I did to bad for a complete rookie though, even if I do say so myself. However now comes the task of staying on top of the city, and getting them on top of this before fall comes again.

I actually have my argument written out, so I'll post what I read to the court for you;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to start by explaining that I respect the law, and I am not here simply because I am unwilling to pay a ticket. I am here today because I disagree with a law that forces countless residents of Regina to break it, either knowingly or as in my case unknowingly, out of necessity. This law creates unnecessary financial hardship for people with no other option than to park on the street, with extra costs to avoid a ticket, further ticket costs, or possibility lost wages. It is not only my civil right to dispute this ticket, it is my civic responsibility to fight a law that is an inappropriate injustice to a large number of city residents who have no option but to park on the street, and yet need to keep their vehicle in running condition to support their families in Saskatchewan's winters!

As residents of Saskatchewan I am sure we are ALL aware of the necessity to plug in our vehicle in winter, and we are also all aware that a lot of the time sidewalks are not kept in the best conditions (by both the city and residents). As a result we are all more careful when we go out on them because poor conditions and power cords that accompany block heaters, are simply a part of the Saskatchewan winter landscape. Perhaps someone visiting from some a more tropical climate might be ignorant of this feature of the our winters, but residents know that one common winter feature will be power cords running over sidewalks in an effort to keep vehicles running. When a citizen takes appropriate measures to maintain both theirs, and the city's, sidewalks in such a condition for both ease of city sidewalk use, and a clear visibility of said “hazards”, these appropriate measures negate any real threat or liability. I was born in Saskatchewan, and have lived in the west all of my life, in all that time I cannot recall ever having tripped on an extension cord run across a sidewalk (of which were innumerable!) Why? Because like everyone else here in Saskatchewan, I am aware of the necessity for it, and that I need to be conscious of this very minor inconvenience.

It should also be noted that in the 14 years of this bylaw being enacted, there have only been “roughly 400” tickets issued (29/season), which shows decidedly that this is not an actively enforced bylaw, but one only acted upon at the behest of a complainant.

Your Honour; I was unaware of this bylaw's existence and although ignorance is not an excuse, it is a valid explanation when you look at the sheer number of Federal, Provincial, and Municipal laws that an individual would be forced to memorize to be in complete compliance. This is why the City has the 24 hour notice policy, and I was denied even the primary opportunity to comply willingly. Ticketing in a case where it was obvious where the owner of the vehicle is resides (the officer threw the cord onto my property), as well as being very likely that they were available (since their car was plugged in), is completely unnecessary, especially in a first offense situation.

As for the “hazard” our cord presented (As per the 3 criteria mentioned by the city, which were Tripping, snow blowers, and shovelling);

1. first off we promptly shovel our walks (to the extent that one Canada post parcel delivery man thanked me, out of the blue, for keeping it clean when he brought a parcel to my door during the major snowfall in November).
2. Secondly we did not leave excess cordage on the walk, it is one length of cord, flat and easily visible on the sidewalk. (Our cord is also one that has ridges on it which helps prevent slipping if it were stepped on.)
3. We have been diligent to clean the city sidewalks every winter for as long as we have lived in our home, and there is as far as I know only 1 snow blower in the neighbourhood, which I have never seen run. (And when we have shovelled for others, or Vice Versa, it has been easy to avoid cords.)
4. Finally I think it is safe to say that this hazard is minimized by pedestrians already understanding that they need to be aware of icy conditions, and any number of cords, that exist, not unnecessarily, on most residential sidewalks during our winters, (especially since residents are often forced to walk on the street because of poorly maintained sidewalk conditions elsewhere.)

I believe this law needs to be changed and adapted to suit the conditions we in the “Great White North” live in, and I am looking for some sort of compromise on this bylaw, whereby to maintain the functionality, it is not necessary for anyone to break the law, and yet still adequately ensure the safety of those walking down our street, as I believe we have already been diligent to do. There has to be a way for citizens without off street parking to maintain an operational vehicle in our Saskatchewan winters without being contrary to the law, otherwise it would be safe to say that thousands of the city's residents are forced every winter to break this law, just to have a functional vehicles.

On December 13^th 2010 I received a call from Mayor Pat Fiacco, who informed me that he, and my City Councillor Mr. Mike O'Donnell, would be putting forward a motion for the city administration to look at possible changes of this bylaw. Obviously after having this brought to their attention they have seen the problems with this bylaw, and they are taking the steps necessary to amend it to better reflect the needs of residents who have no choice but to break it. The Motion was set forward on December 20^th at the City Council Meeting, which was passed. There is currently an investigation going on by the public works department to look into adequate changes to the law because of this motion.

I would also like to mention that this bylaw is also NOT environmentally friendly, as it forces residents, if they want their cars to function during winter, to run them far more frequently than if they were able to use the block heater (which vehicle manufacturers recommend plugging in below -15C). And when we look into the future, where the possibility of “Green” electric cars becomes the norm, this bylaw will effectively eliminate a large number of “green” vehicles on the road as they will have no way to recharge them.

The courts not only have the power to enforce laws, but also to affect positive change when needed. Obviously this law needs amendment to allow for a compromise from the city to its residents, while having enough common sense in it to eliminate any real hazards.  I am asking you to send a message to the city administrators that they are in fact creating a hardship for residents and the environment with this law, and let them know that this law does not work for the average citizen therefore it needs to be amended. 

Your Honour, I invite you participate in this process by finding me not guilty.

Thank you, Your Honour.

Got a nice little note from an unhappy neighbor.

Note left on our car

I was welcomed to my wife's' car this morning by this note left from my neighbor.

Now to put this story into perspective; Yes I backed up to about 6 inches off his full sized extended cab truck's front bumper with our Pontiac G3 wave sub compact, when I parked in front of my house.  Why were you being an ass you ask?  I wasn't, I was complying with a city bylaw which requires me to leave 2 meters clearance to a driveway, it was in fact this individual parking too close to the spot ahead of him which created the issue.  It should be noted that my "daughter's vehicle" which he refers to in the note hasn't been there for almost a year, as she hasn't lived at home in almost that long. 

Here is a picture of the space he has to park, with our vehicle in the front, and their second vehicle in the back. Now I'm pretty sure there is enough room for him to get in and out of, while leaving me adequate space to comply with the law.  Yes our street is crowded for parking, but honestly if you complain your huge truck doesn't have room to park because of a sub compact, I think your head is planted a little to firmly and deeply in a dark stinky space behind you.  You will note that there would probably be enough room to fit two more of our vehicles in the space left, and ANY other vehicle.

I have asked them to park properly in the past because they have parked in front of our house backwards, too close to the driveway, and left a visitors vehicle parked in front of our house over Christmas, and I've politely asked them to leave us enough room for our one car, which is why I believe it was likely them that called the police to have us ticketed for our extension cord.

It's not really a question of whether or not we are doing anything wrong, because we aren't, it's a question of him somehow feeling entitled to get everything how he wants it.  Well boy, it's time to grow up a bit. I will be waiting for him to arrive home and speak to him in person, like a real man does. I was considering a note with the offer to come and discuss things, but I think I'll just wait and do it in person.

Updated from my Councilman.

Yesterday I received a call from my city councilman Mike O'Donnell, who knew that I had heard about the motion he and the Mayor are going to put forward to amend the current extension cord bylaw.  He also called to give me a little heads up on the procedures the use, and a little thing called an "executive meeting", which is a less formal meeting than publicly addressing Council during there regular meetings.  Basically he invited me to watch for this on the agenda and make an appearance.

I thanked both he and the Mayor for taking me and this cause seriously, and that I appreciated their efforts in working on it.  He said that my logic made sense, and it seemed that it was time to do something about it. :-)

Update from the Mayor.

I spoke with the Mayor of Regina (Mr. Pat Fiacco) about this issue for the first time on November 30th 2010, and he commiserated and agreed that he didn't like the law, as well as saying he would have the Cuty's legal team look into it.

Today (December 13th 2010) Mayor Fiacco called me back and informed me that he was going to put a motion in front of council to amend the bylaw where it will have a safe allowance for the use of extension cords to run across a city sidewalk. I mentioned that the City of Grand Prairie had a bylaw in place that satisfies both safety and necessity, so that he knew I supported a rewording like it.

I also got a letter today on my dispute of the ticket, and it appears that they didn't even read the reasons I was disputing it. I disputed it for 2 reasons, 1. the law is inappropriate for Saskatchewan, and 2. because the enforcement agency did not follow City procedure in issuance of City bylaws.  So I will continue on with it in court, and I will argue my case with even more ammunition knowing that the City will probably amend the bylaw.

Regina Extension cord bylaw.

I was upset about getting a ticket for a bylaw infraction, and wrote a letter about it to the Leader Post here in Regina Saskatchewan. And it seems this was a bigger issue than I thought.

I was also interviewed by CBC, Global, and CTV about this issue, and in an online poll conducted on the CBC article it seems that 85% of the voters agree that this should either not be a law, or the officer should have used judgment on whether or not it was dangerous.

I have started an online petition to start change, located at; PETITION.

I would love to hear ideas on how we can keep pedestrians safe, and at the same time accommodate the necessity of Saskatchewan residents to plug their vehicles in when they must park on the street.

Bob

Why I am fighting this ticket.

 I am not an enemy of justice, but this ticket is an injustice, and in this case the law was unjustly applied. This bylaw is an injustice to every person forced to park on the street who needs to keep their vehicle running, so they can get to work and make ends meet, in our Saskatchewan winters! Also complaints should not warrant instant tickets, they should illicit discussion first for compliance if possible, before ticketing, but if the offence truly warrants an instant ticket, tickets should be given across the board to everyone in violation of the infraction.

This ticket is an example of how our bylaw systems can be easily abused. When bylaws are enforced only on when a complaint is received, it is easy for individuals to use them in their petty squabbles against their neighbours. I say this because the enforcement officer who came and unplugged and ticketed my car neglected to ticket anyone else in our neighbourhood for the same infraction, including the vehicle plugged in all day right next door to us who was plugged in as we were being ticketed (and potential 5 more as he left our street.) I guess this is why I find myself personally arguing with individuals parked in marked Handicap spaces who have no legal right to be there, instead of them getting ticketed, because they know they can get away with it as enforcement usually only comes when called, and that takes time.

I should also mention that I was unaware of this bylaw's existence, and although ignorance is not an excuse, neither should ticketing be a form of enlightenment, especially in a case where it was obvious where the person resides, as well as being highly likely they were home if their car was plugged in. There are obviously 14 others in small my neighbourhood that are ether unaware, or by necessity breaking this law because they have no other option, as we live in a climate that requires our vehicles to be plugged in during the winter months.

• As for the “hazard” our cord presented;

1. first off we contentiously, and diligently shovel our walk, and the city walk in front of our home (primarily to make it convenient for postmen, which one Canada post parcel delivery man profusely thanked me for when he brought a parcel to my door).
2. Secondly we did not leave excess cordage on the walk, it is one thin cord flat on the sidewalk.
3. Finally we never left the cord on the sidewalk when it was not in use.

All being said and done, I am looking for some sort of compromise on this bylaw, where to maintain the functionality to support your family, it is not necessary to break the law. There has to be a way for citizens without off street parking to maintain an operational vehicle in our Saskatchewan winters without being contrary to the law, otherwise it would be safe to say that thousands of the city's residents are right now, and every day, are contrary to the law just so they can get to work and feed their families. As well as keeping the public reasonably safe and not inconvenienced. I am look for suggestions for the court, and from the city, on how to best resolve this issue and maintain compliance with the law not only for me, but also for those unknown multitude of others that are forced to break this law every winter.

BEWARE! Winter parking on the street means no power for you!

Those of us forced to park on the street overnight in winter are going to need stout vehicles, because in Regina it's actually a ticket-able offense to run an extension cord across a sidewalk to plug your car into! What an absurd bylaw to have, let alone to enforce, in a Saskatchewan winter!

The explanation I received from the Bylaw division was that “it is a trip hazard, and the city would be liable for it” as well as "we only ticket complaints" which wqas to explain why my next door neighbor did not receive a ticket at the same time for the same infraction. Now I understand that the city wants to protect itself from liability, but with reasonable measures (such as a bright yellow extension cord, and a contentiously cleaned sidewalk), there should be no reason that even an infirm individual will not recognize and be able to avoid this sometimes very necessary and insignificant “hazard”.

That's not the worst of it unfortunately; my first issue is how the officer (Badge No: C504) decided that rather than come to the house and inform us we were in violation of a city ordinance, and give us the opportunity to comply, he UNPLUGGED the vehicle and THEN wrote the ticket! (Obviously we were home, and of course we would have complied to the law!) My next issue is that this Officer failed to give a ticket for the EXACT same infraction, to the house right next door to us (not to mention any number of other offences occurring on the street, at the very moment he was issuing my ticket!)

Now of course we all feel like a victim when we get a ticket we don't want (and in this case weren't even aware that it was an infraction), but it's even worse when you are singled out among many of the same infractions occurring in the exact same single block street. If the officer was there to strictly enforce the bylaw (rather than give the person a chance to comply with it), then why was I the only one ticketed for that on my block?

My question is simple; What do you do in winter in Regina to keep your car running, if you have to park on the street?

It's really hard to “heart” Regina with bylaws like this enforced without the application of common sense or common courtesy.

Bob

The paradox of pain.

Pain seems to make the day last forever, but it never leaves you time to get anything accomplished.

I always seem to be fighting with the chronic pain I have, which seems to leave little or no time to accomplish even the things I am capable of.  I was thinking about this as I struggle through the day, wishing I could accomplish something while at the same time just trying to hold off being overwhelmed by it.  It's an odd situation we put ourselves in, we force ourselves to be task oriented, or outcome driven, and we never expect that to be taken away from us.  Yet at the same time the fragility of our bodies leaves us vulnerable to injuries which can leave us incapable of doing the simple things we once took for granted, and should this happen it takes considerable rewiring of the way we think to avoid a number of mental conditions which arise from it.  Of course I speak primarily of depression, but often our previously programmed thoughts can lead to other feelings like that of inadequacy, low self esteem, and burdening of family. 

It's a tough thing trying to to come to terms with both the pain and the feelings of inadequacy it evokes, but maybe that itself is an accomplishment to be recognized? Then again maybe I'm just grasping at straws, but you take what's in arms reach when you feel like you're drowning.