100% bureaucratic negligence, Derelection of Duty and lost with regards to priority.
Harper hates women!
- Thread starter Socrates the Greek
- Start date
100% bureaucratic negligence, Derelection of Duty and lost with regards to priority.
If you were in a prison in some foreign land who would you call for help? God?
Me? I'd call my lawyer. Not my Prime Minister. It's not his fault I traveled abroad and got myself into trouble. Now, if I was denied due process, THEN I'd start making phone calls to governing bodies. But I certainly wouldn't put the onus strictly on the Prime Minister, and I DEFINITELY wouldn't try to turn it into a gender issue like you have.
Sorry, and I have got to be the easiest sale going, but I'm starting to find it harder to buy into Ms Martin's story. Mom's on the telly begging and crying the same crocodile tears. Too much drama spoils the effect. There IS an embassy....
Woof!
Woof!
Last edited:
When the Mexican authority deprives you from leagal representation who would be a better person than the PM you voted in. But not in this case, one thought that comes to mine is the PM may have realised that Mrs. Marting voted for the libs and now is pay back time for Harper. When he was campaigning for the PM job he was squawking that he would help all Canadians equally.
It seems some have judged this woman guilty without hearing the facts. She happened to be in the employment of a man charged with a fraud crime. Her former boss signed a sworn affidavit that she had no part in the activity.
The problem is not whether she is guilty or not guilty. The problem is the long time spent in a foreign jail without a trial. Harper spoke yesterday with some compassion for Ms. Martin but he indicated that the government's hands are tied. The judicial system in Mexico is similar to our own in that it acts as a separate entity from government. As Harper indicated, the government has made nearly 100 attempts over the past 2 years to clear up this problem but the requests are falling on deaf ears. Until the Mexican government and judiciary system gets it's act together this will linger on for some time yet.
The problem is not whether she is guilty or not guilty. The problem is the long time spent in a foreign jail without a trial. Harper spoke yesterday with some compassion for Ms. Martin but he indicated that the government's hands are tied. The judicial system in Mexico is similar to our own in that it acts as a separate entity from government. As Harper indicated, the government has made nearly 100 attempts over the past 2 years to clear up this problem but the requests are falling on deaf ears. Until the Mexican government and judiciary system gets it's act together this will linger on for some time yet.
Paranoid supposition. It seems to me a smart political move would be to win over any voter to your party possible, and leaving her in jail spoils the votes of everyone she knows. Come on now.
What Embassy? we are talking that this women was deprived from basic civil liberties. If you were in that predicament you obviously wouldn't want to be forgotten by a government who SUCKALLED before getting in and as soon as they are in they inject 2 billion $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ for a stupid war, and that wolf is being lost for priorities. While Canadians abroad are potentially looking at smiler circumstance in unfortunate occasions.
The FIRST person I would ask to see is someone from the Counselates Office so I would have some proper representation and not the jailer's brother, Pedro. Somehow, I find it hard to believe that Canada got itself involved in an overseas conflict so Canadians abroad could be left to rot in foreign jails without Canadian representation. I empathize with Ms Martin ... but something just doesn't sit right about the whole situation.
Woof!
Last edited:
To get to what may or may not be your point, is it your contention that all people charged with a crime in a foreign country should be returned home before actually having a trial? Does this also apply to all foreign nationals in Canada? We just send them home without any trial, if they are charged?
Yea from a Lawyer......if dindt do anything wrong that is...if not id just call the big guy the PM and say look get me out of here....make a big scene blah blah blah...
It dosent matter what the sovereignty laws of foreign lands are. Here in Canada we hold people accused of a crime to protect them from brutal prosecution. Anyone who thinks that foreign jails are a cake wall are dreaming.
Demoting Rona Ambrose speaks volums of his tolerance towards women, and still no improvement has been made with the new successor to Ambros who happend to be a man John Baird minister of what environment.
Last edited:
My hubby had to flat out FIRE a woman once. Man, he must really hate my gender. Wow.
Your hubby sounds like a chauvinistic pig, Karrie. I am going to round up my gang of militant feminists and burn dirty panties on your lawn.
I disagree. If you have something important to tell me, you don't need to stare into my eyes to tell me. If you do it for too long, I'll either tell you to stop because you're freaking me out, or I might reflex-punch you out.
Looking or staring at anything has nothing to do with communication (Unless you're reading something like this... but you're not staring at me) .... vocal/sound, and sign language are. I'm telling you straight forward and honestly, that if you or anybody else begins to stare me down or continually look into my eyes, something's going to happen. You might as well be grabbing me by the penis and stroking gently.... I will be equally uncomfortable and you will be warned.
The world would certainly be a safer place, you are correct.
But what you are claiming by your explaination is that I must be a two faced person/personality because I don't look at you. That is a generic and absolutely incorrect statement. You may believe it to be true, but that doesn't make it true. Anybody who knows me personally and directly know that I'm one of the more trusting people, as well as generous as they have met.... to the point where I'll let myself be taken advantage of before I do the same to others.
You may considder that because I do not look into your eyes that I am a two faced person who shouldn't be trusted..... I considder your continual staring at me as intimidating, a challenge, intrusive, arrogant and a test of your attempt of dominance over a conversation. I feel this towards anybody and if I do the same thing, then I feel I am doing the above to the person I am talking to, therefore I do not stare at people for a long period of time.
Believe me, if I am serious about something, or I feel you are in the wrong, you will know I am staring at you, and you will be very aware of my seriousness. But unless the situation like that arises, I have no need to be glaring at people.
Added:
I was in customer service for a few years myself, and I know that looking into people's eyes is promoted for good sales etc... but I always disagreed with this principle. It maybe good for winning sales from clients and customers, and it may make you seem like you are sure of what you say when you talk, but that's sales/profit reasoning.... not social. (Attempt to dominate the conversation and make the other person not sure.... AKA: attempt to make them rely and trust in what you say through visual domination.)
I usually do not trust people who stare me down, then I would over someone who did the same as I.
Last edited: