The first day I was arrested? The Irvings named me a protester in their papers.
The second time they again wrote - Protester Charles LeBlanc!
I just ignored the issue until a few people confront me on the streets.
I said - Enough is enough!!!
I called the Irving paper and the editor was very rude to me. I decided to play their little game so I wrote a letter to the editor telling the readers that I wasn’t a protester. I was a blogger!!!
My letter was not printed so I wrote an email telling the paper to warn Jamie Irving that I will pursue this issue big time. I will blog this issue to death.
The next day, my letter was printed.
The next time I appear in court the Irvings covered the story.
The story they printed was ok until the last paragraph.
The Irvings wrote - Charles was ban from the New Brunswick Legislature for harassing the public.
This issue had nothing to do with my trial. It was just a way to discredit me.
They could have written - Allegedly or supposedly harass the public?
I wrote a letter to the editor about this issue but the Irvings wouldn’t print the story.
I sent a letter of complaint to Senator Munson but never received a reply.
You can read my presentation to the Senate by clicking below-
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
So? My first day in court on Monday. I noticed the CBC team was in the court room but no Irvings.
I was told yesterday there was a story in the paper.
I check it out and it was this-
Officer deletes photo at arrest
Telegraph-Journal
As published on page B2 on November 21, 2006
SAINT JOHN - A Saint John police officer who pinned Charles LeBlanc to the ground during a protest in the summer testified Monday that he deliberately deleted a digital images of himself off the blogger's camera.
Sgt. John Parks told the court he arrested LeBlanc as approximately 30 to 40 protesters attempted to storm the convention centre, the CBC reported Monday.
As LeBlanc was arrested, he was knocked to the ground by Parks and Const. Tanya Lawlor. Parks testified that he then found LeBlanc's digital camera and deleted the photo.
According to media reports, Lawlor testified that LeBlanc was not listening to police and resisting their efforts. After the incident, Lawlor said she looked up LeBlanc's blog on the Internet, and found pictures of herself using a baton to ward off protesters, set to the song Kung Fu Fighting. She said it made her feel humiliated. The trial is to continue today.
They must have taken it from the CBC website.
Once again, yesterday the Irvings weren’t in court to cover the story and I might add there’s nothing in this morning paper.
I noticed a woman in court sitting beside me. Afterwards, I asked her - What's your name? She quickly answered- I'M ANTI-IRVING!!!
People in the area had a good chuckle on that one.
Many asked - Where's the Irvings? < Noticed I don't say Newspaper reporters? >
The question is why? Now? I know for a certain fact that if the trial had turned against me or another issue that I was charge with?
The story would have been on the front page.
I remember when I protest in a tent for six months in front of the legislature. I was protesting the Government to do a study on Ritalin.
It took 50 days for the Irvings to cover the story.
Hundreds of citizens in the Fredericton area asked me the reason this protest wasn’t in the papers?
I remember one woman showed up with a protest sign for a few hours during my protest and was on the front page the next day.
Personally, It doesn’t bother me if I’m in the paper or not. < Those days are long gone >
My main concern is the way the Irvings are controlling what goes in their papers.
We have no talk shows in New Brunswick and there’s no way to get the message out beside blogging but it’s not everyone who owns a computer.
I bet if I’m found guilty on Friday? The story will be on the front page.
The Irvings are using this way of communication to brainwash the public. They will discredit anyone who they feel is the enemy and that individual is not allowed to write a letter to the editor.
This is very scary stuff!!!
Democracy in New Brunswick is dead when it comes to our Irving Newspapers!!!
I might add that CHSJ Rdio < IRVING OWN > didn't cover the trial also!!!
New Brunswickers do live in a Hogan Heroes World. We have to go underground to spread our message to the public.
18 comments:
Is your trial about the rights of bloggers or getting your name in the paper?
DUUHHHHH!!!!! I believe that you have missed the point of this blog but that's ok!!!
you know to much!
I support you all the way. There needs to be something done about the state of journalism in New Brunswick. But who's going to do it? In order for there to be another newspaper, someone has to start one. I haven't heard of anyone attempting to start up a new paper since the Irvings took over, but then again, Irving wouldn't publish that would they?
Same old, same old, yap yap. You have anything new to say.
According to CBC News today it looks like you will be OK. The judge is not very happy about the Crown's case against you!
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2006/11/21/nb-blogtrial.html
Kinda reeks of "miscarriage of justice", doesn't it??
"Me, me, me, me, me, me, me!" - that's what the blog is about.
Charels : Is it true if your found Not Guilty, you plan on filing a Law Suit against the City of Saint John ??
Maybe it's because they don't think you're as important as you think... or the CBC thinks... you are...
The paper and the radio stations tend to be more focused on local issues and what is important to Saint John residents. Most people with some inside knowledge realize that you're a huge crackpot whose had enough time in the spotlight. Yes, the police force completely goofed this time, and I hope it is pointed out--but the trial isn't nearly as important as you or some others feel it is. It isn't precedent setting because the judge will not recognize you as a legimitimate journalist in his final statements--the issue is simple not what this trial is about.
I read Charles blog almost daily. I often wonder why people visit his site if they think it's garbage? What's up with all of the negative comments about his blog? If you find his blog useless why do you visit? You must be getting some sort of value from his website if you visit often enough to be able to post such strong feelings. Are you here for the news? Entertainment value? Whatever the case, you are getting something out of your visit.
Yes, it is too bad there is such negativity. This is hugely important, although a judge certainly can't rule that Charles is a journalist, he can rule that it was a miscarriage, and that ruling could go a long way in a lawsuit. It would also bear directly on Duane's case in Fredericton showing an unhealthy pattern in New Brunswick police forces. Charles easily has a civil case here, but of course can't afford a lawyer and I don't know if NB even allows litigants to hire lawyers on the basis of getting a percentage of what the lawsuit brings in.
I think NB taxpayers should kiss Charles' skinny white ass if he doesn't sue, because in that act alone he's saved taxpayers more money than he's ever recieved or will ever recieve from the province.He could sue for six million, settle for one, and retire in the carribean. I hope he does sue, because clearly the Police should be taught a similar lesson as the one they meted out.
As for the 'all about me' comment, I counted the top fourteen stories and only 5 of them had anything to do with Charles, so that's hardly being egomaniacle, even though it IS his blog.
With good luck and in good time within decent blogs and even in corrupt political courts some of the whole truth will be sometimes revealed if it is politcally correct to do so at that point in time. N'est Pas?
Charles, I want to know you have my support. No matter what the negative comment people say, it should not matter who you are. Anyone has the right to walk around Saint John or Fredericton taking pictures without getting arrested and having their pictures deleted. Even if you are not what people consider a "legitimate" journalist, you should not be arrested for taking pictures.
Last summer, a guy in the South End of SJ was causing quite the scene at 10:30 PM, shouting obscenities, threatening to kill people, threatening to burn down houses, vomitting on the sidewalk. Several residents called the police. When the police showed up, they talked to the guy and told him to be more quite and left him there to continue making a disturbance. It took several more phone calls and complaints before the police would return and arrest him. So apparently, in Saint JOhn, you can be a drunk and high idiot uttering death threats and NOT get arrested... but take some pictures and LOOK OUT!
12"44am: You're forgetting that Charles was not just walking around the streets of Saint John. He knowingly proceeded to a private building (we've been over this before, it's not public) where a conference was being held. There were conference delegates inside and the only people outside were media and protestors and security. So, if he's not media or security, then he was a protestor. He denies it but based on all of the photos of himself with the protestors and vocally supporting them, it certainly tells another story.
It's good to bring it up again because some people are playing fast and loose with the facts. It is NOT a private building, it is OWNED by the city of Saint John, it is MANAGED by a private company. There's a BIG difference there.
And as the court case showed, the police used Charles blog to get information about the protest. At that blog Charles said he was covering it as a blogger, as he states, he doesn't know anything about 'Atlantica'. To my knowledge I don't think Charles has been in a public protest for any group.
So the police KNEW he was covering it as a blogger. And as said ad nauseum, and repeated by the judge, why arrest a guy taking pictures when there is a masked guy right next to him? So not only is it discrimination, but police admitted that they knew he was not a protestor.
This isn't the sue happy U.S. 12:27, Charles would be fortunate to win a few thousand dollars (mostly because of the deletion of pictures on the camera) and legal costs.
When you sue a city,you are suing your neighbours.
Post a Comment