Class action against the classroom

The British Columbian Teachers' Federation could soon be facing more courtroom trouble because of its decision to stage an illegal strike. Earlier today, CKNW reported Sidney lawyer Denis Berntsen announced he was in the process of certifying a class action lawsuit claiming $25 million in damages. And now, Public Eye has learned Bruce Hallsor, who has been the legal mind behind numerous conservative causes across the province, is also preparing class action papers on behalf of British Columbians who are losing employment opportunities and paying childcare fees because of the federation's work stoppage. Mr. Hallsor is also the lawyer for a similar lawsuit being undertaken against the Hospital Employees Union for their illegal strike in 2004. That lawsuit has been partially financed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. In an interview, Mr. Hallsor said he did not yet know whether the taxpayers would be kicking in any financing towards the lawsuit against teachers. A version of this article was will be published in tomorrow's edition of 24 hours.

63 Comments

Bruce

When are you going to get a 10' x 10' office in a parking lot a la Doug Christie?

Keep it up..maybe you can start your very own movement to separate from Canada...don't let the door hit you on the way out.

It's about time someone will stick up for the taxpayer. Shouldn't my right to elect a government to make laws to govern exceed all others? Yeesh...

Do you also think it's OK for governments to break legal contracts, change the law to suit their aims and sell off public assets to benefit their friends?

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation is nothing but a thinly disguised Tory/CCRAP front who apparently admire the BC Libs...quelle surprise.

We had wot'shername, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, out here recently giving her standard speech about how the government (that's us folks) needs to provide more money for legal aid so real people can get their real issues heard in court. More of our tax dollars would just mean more income for the legal profession, not more justice. Wake up, Madame!

Meanwhile what is really going on in our courtrooms? Theatre of the Absurd! I've been in court myself trying to contend with corrupt lawyers and bullying judges. We should load all the LLB's on one of the fast ferries and deep six it!

They use to beat us with Pinkerton's
Now they use Lawyers

Dear sleapingwithangels, I think governments should be allowed to govern. Government runs this province, unions don't. Anything less is basically anarchy. I'm sorry if you feel unions should run BC...most people don't.

Max

I think the school system failed you buddy.
You should fire whoever is reading this to you.

Bash, bash, bash! Bully, bully, bully!

The posters on this site exemplify what the teachers are complaining about.

Th utter hyprocrisy is that all the bashing and bullying is supposedly being done in the interests of public education. But when it comes to actually putting real money where your mouths are, you're all totally against it -- you'd rather see tax cuts every time!

"It's about time someone will stick up for the taxpayer."

"The taxpayer" will not see a dime from these suits. "The taxpayer" will spend a lot of money on court costs for this frivolity.

"Shouldn't my right to elect a government to make laws to govern exceed all others? Yeesh..." No. Google 'canadian contitution' sometime and prepare to be amazed.

Too-shay, sleepswithangels, too-shay.

The BCTF is involved in a political fight. They are trying, along with the other big unions, to fight the last election. We as taxpayers democratically elected this government to do what is in the best interests of all citizens. Now the BCTF, NDP junior, don’t like that so they are illegally striking. This is causing many people besides themselves hardships. They know that and don’t care one bit. So why should us the taxpayers care about the BCTF. The class action is the way for citizens who democratically elected a government to stand up to the union bullies and tell them that this won’t fly in BC anymore. It’s giving power to the people. You lefties are constantly saying you need to stand up for what you believe in. Now we are doing that. Bring on the class action.

Name

I'm all for giving the school system a blank cheque to spend whatever is necessary to produce exceptional students and good citizens. There would be more than enough money in our society to do this if it weren't for the massive costs in health care we cover which are the direct result of corporate crime. In Canada there are tens of billions spent every year to deal with the disease caused by:
- Tobacco
- Processed & Junk foods
- Alcohol abuse
- faulty pharmaceuticals

Just to put this in perspective..there are approx. 1700 deaths/year attributed to all black market drugs in Canada. A minimum of 24,000 die of Adverse Drug (pharmaceutical) Events and 45,000 die from tobacco use. Hell..the doctors even admit that up to 95% of ADE's aren't reported as such..the blame goes to the underlying ailment instead.

Clean up this hypocrisy ridden mess and we would have balanced budgets and the best public schools on the planet.

"The BCTF is involved in a political fight." True.

" They are trying, along with the other big unions, to fight the last election." False. Nothing they do can change the number of seats held by any party in the legislature and they are aware of that.

"We as taxpayers democratically elected this government to do what is in the best interests of all citizens." Also true. So please explain how the government's long running arrogant and abusive behavior towards a large and important group of employees, based solely on the fact that those employees exercise their democratic rights to try and elect another party, is in the best interest of all citizens.

A union that represents less than 1% of the population is not representing the best interests of the public. No matter which way you cut it a special interest group looking out for themselves does not work in the best interests of the entire population.

If the BCTF and the other union big wigs are looking out for everyones best interests I should be given a vote for the union leadership. Otherwise they are just pandering to their special interests.

Giver

Do you have an intelligent point to make or do you just like hearing yourself make noise..no matter how stupidly?

Sleeping with angels - would you care to share with the rest of us the source of the figures you quoted above.

p101

The tobacco one is easy..just use google:

tobacco deaths in canada

ditto for ADE's and illegal drug deaths.

I'll post again a little later with the links when I've got a few extra minutes.

sleapingwithangels, I think taxes are too high in Canada. So, I feel it's unjust. I'm only going to pay 1/2 of what I'm supposed to this year. Is that acceptible?

Sleepswithangels. Since i'm so stupid i would like you to explain to me how a special interest group, that is voted on by less than 1% of the population, is better suited to shape public policy than a democratically elected government?

Maxpower. I think you forgot unions are allowed to selectively follow laws at their convience.

p101

here are the links you requested

www.cpha.ca/conf96/web_eng/documents/A05-164.doc

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hl-vs/pubs/tobac-tabac/idcds-adctc/index_e.html

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/seniorsdrugs/

• More than 16,000 Canadian seniors died from adverse drug reactions during the five years between 1999 and 2003. (Based on a five per cent reporting rate of suspected adverse reactions to Health Canada)

note: this number only reflects senior's deaths due to ADR (they call them ADE's in the US)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/adr/database/

Max

fill your boots..I'm not your conscience.

Giver

I can see the argument your're trying to make but it doesn't fly. Our laws are shaped by a myriad of special interest groups...lawyers, doctors, car dealers, realestate companies, fish farmers, drug companies, unions etc etc etc.
Ultimately I would like to see no influence from the lobbying efforts of big business or unions in our government but that puppy barked a long time ago.


Denis Berntsen and Bruce Hallsor give "sharks" a bad rep! Lower than whale #*&%.

shark: /noun/ informal--a person who unscrupulously exploits or swindles others [16th c.: origially perhaps from German Schurk, worthless rogue]

Giver, I remember a certain G. Campbell that selectively broke a drinking driving law a while back.
On a more serious note, didn`t Ghandi break some law regarding salt? Isn`t that what sticking up for one`s rights is all about?

"A union that represents less than 1% of the population is not representing the best interests of the public."

"If the BCTF and the other union big wigs are looking out for everyones best interests I should be given a vote for the union leadership."

"Maxpower. I think you forgot unions are allowed to selectively follow laws at their convience."

Unions look out for the interests of their members and no one here has posted anything to the contrary. The BCTF is doing the 'crime' and they expect to do the 'time', that's why this is civil disobedience, not impaired driving or some other criminal activity in which the perpetrator hopes to get a way with it. The BCTF doesn't expect to 'get away with it'. They knew what the consequences would be and are prepared to take them.

Max, you are free to pay only half your taxes if YOU are prepared to take the consequences. You are also free to move to a country with a tax regime more to your liking.

I see no one has answered my question about how it serves the public interest for the government to belligerantly bully and vilify a large and important group of employees based solely on their political affiliation.

f49

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer.

Sleeping - thanks for the links - at least you are able to back up your statements which is better than many on these boards - will take a look at them later.

Maxpower. I think you forgot unions are allowed to selectively follow laws at their convience.

Posted by Giver at October 12, 2005 04:06 PM

You're wrong, Giver, and you know it. It's Liberal Govt's, your governments, that get to cherry pick which laws to obey and which ones to tear up. And laugh about.

In the vast majority of labour relations cases, when a matter is referred to an agency like the LRB or the Supreme Court it is framed in a manner that precludes a meaningful resolution. Courts, of any kind, may be able to determine guilt or innocence; they may even be able to qualify or quantify liability. They don't seem to be much use for anything else. For more nuanced issues, we need to master the art of dialogue.

Meaningful resolution? http://www.lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B278$2005.pdf
Read it and weep. Tomorrow the Supreme Court will determine whether BCTF is guilty or innocent of contempt of court, and quantify liability. Nuanced enough for you?

Hey. It's Dagmar.

As a REAL New Democrat, I just don't get how you can fine someone for not going to work. Or better yet sue them. Because there are a lot of people in BC who don't go to work, and we PAY them and give them bus passes. It pisses me off, and I think they should be forced to work, but hey, you play the hand you're dealt. So what a double standard when you penalize WORKING people standing up for their rights, nailing them for not going to work! Hey, we all deserve a raise -- millions on welfare are depending on it!

There is only one issue here: is anyone above the law? Like it or not, the B.C. Liberals were elected earlier this year. And, lest we forget, they were elected after having legislated a collective agreement with the BCTF during their previous term. There is absolutely no basis for anyone to be be surprised that this would be the outcome this time around if the BCTF and the government were not able to reach a collective agreement.

That having been said, the issue here is whether anyone has the right to disobey laws of their own choice. If we allow the BCTF to make that choice here, then many, many more groups have the same choice available to them and it becomes increasingly difficult to govern our society.

Those who claim that breaking the law in this instance is justified are missing the central point. Our federal and provincial governments have already set the standard for "unjust" laws through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Any laws, including the bill legislating the teachers back to work, which breach the Charter are of no force and effect. The BCTF challenged the bill which legislated the teahcers back work in 2002 and lost. There was no violation of the Charter.

Please, you BCTF spinners on this blog, stop defending the BCTF's breaking of the law. It is indefensible. If you disagree with the government's decision, challenge it at the ballot box or try to strike down the legislation as a breach of the Charter. You have been unable to do either so far, and for the sake of civil society it behooves all teachers to abide by the law.

My hats off to Bruce Hallsor for taking this action against the illegal actions of the BCTF.

the 'Octagon' strikes

It will take a lot more than that rah rah speech to rehabilitate Hallsor's reputation. He and his secret circle of tory self flagelators have exposed their lack of street smarts,
sophistication and intelligence right here on this site. No amount of spin or boosterism will erase the spectacle of Bruce and his buddies trying to reign in one of their own..Eugene Parks..who has treated us to an inside look at these bumbling yahoos and their pretensions to power.

Hey. It's Dagmar.

Rule of Law, how do you feel about the drunk driving premier that you support. Is he above the law? How can you respect the law and support him?

How about the Basi's?

"The BCTF challenged the bill which legislated the teahcers back work in 2002 and lost." Not quite. The judge found tha the gov't they broke the law, so they wrote themselves another law saying it didn't matter what the judge said. It wasn't a violation of the charter but it was a cynical abuse of power, one of many.

Is the distinction between clandestine criminal activity born of avarice, cowardice or addiction and wilful public lawbreaking as an act of civil disobedience too nuanced for some people to understand? Civil disobedience threw aparthied out of South Africa, Jim Crow legislation out of the US, the British out of India and the money changers out of the temple. I totally disagree with the non-native fishermen who go out and fish during the native-only fishing season. I totally defend their right to do so.

How about a law that would see a politician who makes specific promises during an election campaign, then upon election turns around and breaks his promises, fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for every day he's been in office. WHO'S REALLY ABOVE THE LAW HERE? The level of arrogance, deceit, and hypocrisy occurring under this tyrant is a disgrace in what is supposed to be a democracy.
As I've said before any moron can introduce legislation to create unjust laws. That's what tyrants do to secure power.

Aren't there any ambitious sharks out there that would like to initiate a class action suit against this deceitful moron. There's probably about 65 percent or more of the population that would jump on board.

Yeah, democracy hangs by a thread when HEU members can't take a day off to get their dog to the vet, or when a narcissistic teacher union can't stamp its feet and get control over the education budget.

BCTF : union or cult? Characteristics of a cult include :
The group is focused on a living leader to whom members seem to display excessively zealous, unquestioning commitment. (Does the name Jinny Sims ring a school-bell?)

The group is preoccupied with bringing in new members.(Librarians, special-ed assistants, etc.)

The group is preoccupied with making money.

Questioning, doubt, and dissent are discouraged or even punished.

The leadership dictates sometimes in great detail how members should think, act, and feel.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, its leader(s), and members.

The group has a polarized us- versus-them mentality, which causes conflict with the wider society.

The group teaches or implies that its supposedly exalted ends justify means that members would have considered unethical before joining the group.

Or, like Prof. Joel Bakan, I could practice armchair psychiatry and cite evidence that the BCTF exhibits the traits of a psychopath :

Psychopaths are social predators who charm, manipulate, and ruthlessly plow their way through life, leaving a broad trail of broken hearts, shattered expectations, and empty wallets. Completely lacking in conscience and in feelings for others, they selfishly take what they want and do as they please, violating social norms and expectations without the slightest sense of guilt or regret.

These people are impulsive, unable to tolerate frustration and delay, and have problems with trusting. They take a paranoid position or externalize their emotional experience. They have little ability to form a working alliance and a poor capacity for self-observation. Their anger is frightening. Their relations with others are highly problematic. When close to another person they fear engulfment or fusion or loss of self. At the same time, paradoxically, they desire closeness; frustration of their entitled wishes to be nourished, cared for, and assisted often leads to rage.Ultimately, the psychopath must have what he wants, no matter what the cost to those in his way.

Paranoia may be evident in simple or elaborate delusions of persecution. Highly suspicious, they may feel conspired against, spied upon or cheated, or maligned by a person, group, or governmental agency. Any real or suspected unfavorable reaction may be interpreted as a deliberate attack upon them or the group.

Glibness is a hallmark of psychopaths. They are able to use language effortlessly to beguile, confuse, and convince. They are captivating storytellers. They exude self-confidence and are able to spin a web that intrigues others and pulls them into the psychopath's life. Most of all, they are persuasive. Frequently they have the capacity to destroy their critics verbally or disarm them emotionally.

Psychopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious they are being untruthful. It is almost impossible for them to be consistently truthful about either a major or minor issue. They lie for no apparent reason, even when it would seem easier and safer to tell the truth. This is sometimes called "crazy lying." Confronting their lies may provoke an unpredictably incense rage or simply a Buddha-like smile.

For them, objective truth does not exist. The only "truth" is whatever will best achieve the outcome that meets their needs. This type of opportunism is very difficult to understand for those who are not psychopaths. For this reason, followers are more apt to invent or go along with all kinds of explanations and rationales for apparent inconsistencies in behavior

Psychopaths rarely accept blame for their failures or mistakes. Scape goating is common, blaming followers, those outside the group, a member's family, the government, anyone and everyone.


Hey Steve Hopkins. It's Steve Dagmar.

You write at length making no sense whatsoever. And you make me feel more justified in my opposition to legalizing pot.

You seem to hate the BCTF a lot. How about your convicted drunk driver premier? do you hate him. And really, the Liberals more fit the description of a cult.

Mr Pot, meet Mr Kettle.

steve

beautiful speech man..sounded like Marc Anthony's soliloquy.

Were you describing the premier..and what finally brought you around?

References

Cults : http://www.csj.org/infoserv_cult101/checklis.htm

Psychpaths :
chapter five of Captive Hearts Captive Minds by Madeline Landau Tobias and Janja Lalich, Hunter House Inc., 1993

Great Steve, a masterpiece of cut and paste.

"Psychopaths lie coolly and easily, even when it is obvious they are being untruthful." For example:

"I don't believe in tearing up collective agreements"

"We will protect health care and education"

"We will not sell BC Rail"

"Tax cuts pay for themselves"

I could go on. Examples of Liberal psychopathy abound. C'mon Steve, you can do better. It's not even fun proving you don't know what your talking about any more.

At this point the only way the Liberals can defend their claims that they would 'protect' education is by saying they could have made a much WORSE mess of it.

Here is a special message to Steve Hopkins and Shirley Chan.

Having carefully read these descriptions of cults and psychopaths, to what degree do you think these categories may be applied to the Liberal Party of Canada? The BC Liberal Party? Since you belong to both these parties, surely you can tell us whether or not they exhibit the characteristics of either cults or psychopaths.

Let me remind both of you that during the upcoming federal election attention will be drawn to the fact that Federal Liberals like yourself were extraordinarily vocal and enthusiastic warriors against teachers in particular and unionized labour in general. Questions about this can be put to Mr Haggard if he runs, as rumoured, in Surrey Port Kells.

How would you like Mr Haggard to respond if he is asked whether or not he feels comfortable knowing that someone he once starred in a political TV commercial with is now publicly hollering that the BCTF is a cult of psychopaths which must be crushed at all costs?

Do the brains at Liberal HQ know to what degree you two are giving the store away?

Put down the crack pipe, Budd. "Since you belong to both...the Liberal Party of Canada (and) the BC Liberal Party...", "...Federal Liberals like yourself...". You know this to be untrue, i.e. a lie. "...both of you...","...you two...", another lie. I speak only for myself as, no doubt, do you. No self-respecting person would wish to be associated with such rabidly intemperate, obviously false and recklessly foolish sentiments as those you so often express. I judge the accuracy of my opinions by the degree of idiocy and occasional outright lunacy they engender in your replies. By this standard I must be right on the money.

Steve

Budd and I don't see eye to eye on all subjects but I need to know how you justify the following statement:

"No self-respecting person would wish to be associated with such rabidly intemperate, obviously false and recklessly foolish sentiments as those you so often express."

I've challenged numerous people on this and other sites who have made similar statements about me to show, by quotes, how they can back up their assertions. Now I challenge you to back up what you said about Budd.

btw..no one has ever been able to substantiate their "rabidly intemperate, obviously false and recklessly foolish sentiments" regarding me.

Very well Steve Hopkins. Why not just answer the following three questions:

Mr Hopkins, are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada or the BC Liberal Party?

Mr Hopkins, with respect to your partner Shirley Chan, is she now or has she ever been a member of the Liberal Party of Canada or the BC Liberal Party? (We assume you do talk to one another and that you know the correct answer to this question.)

If your partner Shirley Chan is not now, and never has been, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, how is it possible that she was that party's candidate in the Federal Electoral District of Vancouver East for the June 28th 2004 Federal General Election?

Budd

While we wait breathlessly for Steve's answer we might ponder why the "Food Fight" article and thread with over 100 posts has gone missing.

Budd already knows the answers to his first two questions. He asks "...how is it possible that she was (the Federal Liberal) party's candidate in the Federal Electoral District of Vancouver East for the June 28th 2004 Federal General Election?". I am pleased to reply. In recognition of her outstanding personal ability and accomplishments and her lifetime of service to the community in which she was born and raised, she was asked by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister if she would serve her country by standing as a candidate. Similarly, and for the same reasons, when Ms. Margaret Mitchell retired as MP for Vancouver East, the federal NDP asked her to be their candidate in that riding. Only after she declined that honour did they turn to their second choice, that wealthy socialist from West Vancouver Ms. Libby Davies. It was Ms. Davies as readers will recall who, shortly before the last election, moved out of the three bedroom townhouse in a social-housing project for which she paid $718/mo., or 6% of her income (in excess of $155,000/yr.). BC Fed President Jim Sinclair also moved out at the same time. Apparently there was some problem with the optics of champions of the rights of the disadvantaged living in subsidized housing in a country in which 1.5 million households pay more than 30% of gross income for shelter (a third of them pay more than 50% of gross income). Satisfied?

If any one of us was the subject of a new law that ordered us to go clean toilets at $3 an hour, we'd likely do exactly what the teachers did.

The principle is clear; all that's really left to argue is when is one justified in taking such a stand. So let's get over the pretense that this is a debate on questions of legality and be honest: whether or not we support the teachers' action is directly linked to our sympathy (or lack thereof) for their complaint.

Either you're among those who want to cut taxes and spend less on schools or, like me, you see public education as important enough to deserve more of our tax dollars (yes, "our" tax dollars--like it or not, we pay them too and we also get a say!).

It has nothig to do with unions re-fighting the election or 1% of the population trying to wag the dog. The reality, as reflected in several polls, in that British Columbians are deeply split on this, with many parents and public school advocates supporting the teachers. We can bet that the Premier is following those polls closely and will, in the end, be guided accordingly.

I agree education deserves more of our tax dollars, but I don't agree that teachers deserve more of our tax dollars. How much of the recent education funding increases has been eaten up by salaries? We want better education not teachers stuffing their pockets with taxpayers money. Small incremental increases are fine, but demanding 15% raises does nothing for the education system except remove funding from students to teachers pockets.

Hey Giver,
The figures I've seen show that teachers salaries have fallen behind the rate of inflation for the past 12 years. I can't speak for teachers, but I would bet that those small "incremental increases" you speak of is all that teachers truly want--enough to keep up with inflation. How would you react if your work load increased year after year and your salary was effectively less and less? Hardly seems fair to me.

Giver, I very much doubt that anyone at the BCTF seriously thinks they'd get 15%. They've said they're willing to negotiate--repeatedly. How can you negotiate with an employer who is stuck on Zero!

If the Liberals had even offered 0-0-1, the teachers wouldn't have half the support that's out there, because the government could claim that they did negotiate and they did honour the teachers' right to bargain.

The teachers' other critical demand is for controls on class size/composition and more supports for needy students. Sure this helps teachers do their job, but the bottom line is it addresses very real problems that are facing our students and thus it is about improving public education. 95% of the education system IS the teachers--you can't separate the two.

The BCTF is not going to get 15% and they're not going to get class size back in their contracts. But if the government were to offer them at least a cost of living increase, along with a credible mechanism to address class size/composition and support issues, I expect we'd find them back in class pretty quickly.

This whole mess is a huge disappointment -- after all the promises of an end to adversarial politics, here we are back at the old polarization game.

What one thinks about the merits of the teachers’ position (or that of their union which may not be the same) is at best marginally relevant to the topic of class action law suits being brought against them.

One reason that we are forced to rely on adversarial processes to deal with every issue is that the legal profession is constantly feeding the flames, and of course the courts are their playground. I speak from experience. Go there and witness the duplicitous, self-serving behaviour of the lawyers and the judiciary, and you quickly realize that this is no place to resolve anything.

It may be that there are times when a few judges realize that themselves and do what they can to encourage resolution outside the courts. Perhaps this will turn out to be such a case. Far too often the judges prefer the ego-boost that comes from being the ultimate authority.

"In recognition of her outstanding personal ability and accomplishments and her lifetime of service to the community in which she was born and raised, she was asked by the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister if she would serve her country by standing as a candidate."

Fine. But answer the question, Mr Hopkins. Is your wife now, or has she ever been, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, or the BC Liberal Party? And yourself, Mr Hopkins, are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Liberal Party of Canada, or of the BC Liberal Party?

Are you suggesting that during the time your wife was a candidate for the Liberal Party in the Federal Electoral District of Vancouver East, she was not even a member of that party? If she is not now a member, did she quit the Liberal Party as soon as the election was over and she had lost?

Hey Bud, smoke a fatty or something dude, you sound like Joe McCarthy chasing the reds.

c o b

You need to find some 'smart' weed and smoke a lot of it..Budd is employing a parody of McCarthyism to skewer Steve Hopkins. You see..Steve has been playing fast and loose with the truth and Budd has called him on it.
Normally no one would give a flying f*** what Steve says but he has made a point of defending the morally bankrupt practices of the BC Liberal party .

Sleepswithangels

FYI from what I've heard, the "food fight" thread was taken down because one of the Tories posting on there got his lawyer to call Sean Holman and threaten to sue for defammation. Who knew that it was that easy to erase all of your potentially embarassing comments forever. Well, easy if you're a decently well off neo-con with the right friends.

tf

We may not have heard the last about the MIA "food fight"...I think that puppy might have legs.

Seems I missed something. Could someone enlighten me as to what the MIA food fight is all about. Please give it some legs.

missing in action "food fight" was an article followed by a thread with 102 posts that started last week and was pulled on Wednesday...gone, vanished.
I'll let others fill in the blanks but it dealt with an inner circle of CPC "power players" (I use that term very loosely) in Victoria. In the thread an ex-CPCcandidate for nomination in Victoria criticized the prevailing bigotry of the inner circle, who then took turns trying to vilify the ex-can and in the process exposed their true natures.
Ironically, this very thread's header story features one of that "inner circle" who also happened to author some posts thereby dragging himself down with the rest of his clueless, bad tempered confederates.

happy?

you know, Hitler made laws to.


the little corporal made laws to what?

"food fight" is back and it looks intact

and now the "food fight" thread is gone again

vanished within hours of reappearing here on Sunday

it's like a murder mystery...why was 'food fight' killed and who benefitted most from his demise?

While you guys go back and forth about psycopaths, cults, Gordon Campbell,weed and food fights... our children are still at home and not in school. As a single mom losing work over this I can understand why a class action suit has validity. I thought this was a forum to dicuss just that. I'm sure I will be corrected if I'm wrong.

I believe in our teachers... they deserve more pay... but my kids deserve an education. They deserve to play night league basketball(which I just paid for) and they deserve to have all of this while the unions figure out what they are doing.

Vent over.

Lori

Your anger is misplaced. Gordon Campbell and the BC Liberal Party broke international law with their rushed piece of legislation which denied teachers their rights.

Bruce Hallsor is taking the teachers to court to try and shore up support among the biggots and rednecks he is counting on next time he runs for the CPC party in a federal election. If the Nazi Party was polling a tenth of a point higher..Hallsor would probably be strutting the streets of Victoria in knee high black boots humming a Wagner melody.

Leave a comment

Copyright © 2004 - Public Eye Mediaworks. Reproductions of any portion of this Website are permitted only with the expressed permission of Public Eye Mediaworks.
Canadian Web Hosting graciously provided by dotcanuck Web Services. Layout and graphics courtesy of Art Department Design.