I stopped at the door and asked what was going on?
I was told it was a Union Meeting.
I noticed this guy so I quickly went to chat with the Union individual.
I wasn’t certain but I noticed someone sitting with his back turn on me.
I quickly believe that it was Tom Mann?
I decided to leave the area because this sure wouldn’t be the place to face the Union Leader.
I left the hotel and someone gave me a bag of clothes so I went back at the Beaverbrook and asked the Clerk if they could take care of my bag for a few minutes while I go at the New Brunswick Legislature to cover the protest for Day Care.
I was surprised to see all the Union members in the hallway of the Hotel with posters. They were encouraging each other for the Protest.
They were all members of C.U.P.E.!
While walking out, I noticed a guy holding the door for the members while they walked by.
I said to myself - MY GOD??? THAT’S TOM MANN!!!!
For you new readers of the blog? You can read some past blogs about this guy by clicking below.
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
I have been blogging Tom Mann ever since he wrote that letter to the Irving paper congratulating Tanker Malley for banning me from the Leg.
I stood in front of 250 people in Moncton and condemned the Union Leader for supporting the banning of the poor from the Legislature.
I always said that if I ever come face to face with the Tom Mann?
I will confront the guy wherever that place will be?
Unfortunately for this blogger it was right in front of a lot of Union members.
Once he turned his back.
I went for my camera and shouted - THERE’S THE GUY WHO DON’T WANT THE POOR AT THE LEGISLATURE!!!!
I’m certain that Tom Mann didn’t know who was the guy behind the camera but he must have seen the word- BLOGGER on my hat.
Ok . . . It was SHOWTIME!!!!!!
He walked by me without saying a word! There were all kinds of people around and I knew that if I confront the Union Leader on the Ground of the Legislature?
I would be a big trouble.
We were on the streets in the Capital and I had to move fast.
I quickly followed the Union leader and shouted- WHAT’S WRONG TOM? YOU DON’T TALK TO THE POOR???
A guy walked by and said a smart remark.
It was the Union Lawyer David Brown. He was very ignorant.
The Unions can do better without guys like David Brown.
Last June, I asked for a meeting with Tom Mann but David Brown refuses. I hope he doesn’t try again for public office because I’ll be right there to denounce this high class dude.
I quickly continue to concentrate on my pray and that was Tom Mann.
I shouted again- YOU DON’T TALK TO THE POOR TOM????
I was surprised that no Union members tried to be a hero?
Well, if the Labour leader wrote a letter to the editor condemning me?
Therefore he’s fair game and that’s the way it is!!!
The Union Leader came to a sudden stop and turned around to chat with me.
He spoke for around two minutes.
I told the guy - You know what Tom? Close to 98% of people when I mention your name? The say you’re a nice guy!
You know what Tom? They’re right! You are a nice guy.
I’m a Professional when it comes in noticing a person character.
We had a nice chat and he told me that he was supportive of the Harassment policy of the Legislature. I told the Union Leader there’s no harassment policy at the People’s House.
The New Brunswick Human Rights Commission made it very clear that the people in charge in that building can mentally or sexual harrash all employees and nothing can be done.
They don’t have jurisdiction at the Legislature.
The only time the Police will get involved if there’s a crime committed.
So, we had a nice chat and if the jerk David Brown would had set up a meeting last June?
Tom Mann would have never been blasted in my blog but what’s done is done!!! We must have chatted for over 15 minutes about different issues. Maybe he'll invite me for coffee one day? I will apologize to Tom because he is a very nice guy!!!
I settle my difference with Brent Taylor who wrote a column in the Irving’s paper calling me a Kook and now there’s only one individual left.
This guy will be a tough nut to crack because it’s an ignorant Québécois who will not admit they were in the wrong.
But I’ll be there! One thing is certain? If the Quebec Security staff has me arrested? Well, those individuals who put that harrashmant charge against me will have to testify in court.
You see? It’s not hard to do? You sit down and have a chat with me to settle our little problem. It’s a darn shame the bureaucrats at the New Brunswick Police Commission and the Legislator can’t follow the same example????
Stay tuned!!!!
12 comments:
Charlie, I'm glad you finally had a chance to meet Mr. Mann. Many of us have told you over the last year or so that he is a good guy and stands up for the rights of his members. That's what he was doing when he wrote that letter - he was sticking up for his members and that's what they want him to do. I'm glad you met him because I think if you were stuck, Mr. Mann would be one of the first guys to help you. Guess the lesson here is that you get a lot further with honey than you do with vinegar, right? Thanks for letting us know. Have a good one.
I think a lot of posters here are way out of line and that you are pretty reasonable. You don't ask for a public apology or even a retraction letter to the paper. I assume Tom still supports your ban. If that's all it takes to appease you I'm surprised that they don't send Dan out. I'd think the unions should be nicer to you since this is New Brunswick and they'll get far more and better press from you than anywhere else.
Hey, how about an interview with Tom?:)
That's not the lesson at all. Charles didn't change his behaviour and yelled at Tom Mann several times, and not in a friendly way.
The lesson that was learned was hopefully by Mr. Mann, that when people you slander by saying their rights should be taken away want to talk, you owe them at least that.
I don't think Tom is that nice, actions speak louder than words. As head of a union he can help Charles who is 'stuck', we'll see if he does. It's easy to be a politician and talk nice to people, its a lot harder to put your words into deeds.
Good job Charles. Tom is a good person, nice to see the two of you were able to connect.
Lets see, if you repeatedly shout at someone in public...thats ok....But when someone makes a "smart remark" to a person that is shouting at someone in public...(so smart that it can't even be repeated it seems)...that makes him "ignorant". Its becoming more and more obvious you don't spend a lot of time reflecting on your own actions.
Anon 12:21 - you can always see the glass as half-empty when you don't know the parties involved. It's easy. There are hundreds of thousands of armchair quarterbacks in this country. Fact is Charlie and Mr. Mann talked. Charlie found out that Mr. Mann is a decent guy. Why are you trying to see only the negative in that?
Charles,
You're not banned because your poor. Stop putting that old lie out there. You're banned because you're a loudmouth and you're rude to people.
You just don't get it. You can't go around demand this and that of people. You've got to be polite and you've got to know your place. Alot of people have taken pity on you over the years because, frankly, you just don't know any better.
But it seems some people are tired of that. Your constant presence likely wore some of them out and they just can't take you any more. Likely they complained to their bosses and their union about the unhappy work environment you were creating.
What you did to Tom Mann simply proves thier point.
That says it all. "YOu've got to know your place". Being poor means keeping your mouth shut. After all, the poor have been nice and quiet and look how well they prosper! Lowest welfare payments in the country, no rooming rights, the least amount of low income housing in the country.
That's what you get when you are nice and polite and 'know your place'. Of course we've heard that 'know your place' argument in lots of other places too.
People seem to forget that Charles wasn't doing any of this when he was banned. The Tom Mann thing hadn't taken place, and he wasn't even giving Dan a hard time about getting him fired, he was just doing his blogging thing.
So again, what this proves is what most activists know, that if you 'know your place' you will get nothing in today's political system.
I agree with the above though, its funny to hear Charles relate his story about yelling at Tom and saying 'somebody said something ignorant'! That's funny.
At the very least Charles has a damn good reason to be rude.
But far from being negative this is a positive step, and hopefully the 'powers that be' will realize how bloody easy it is to get along with Charles, just have a minimal amount of respect.
I suspect they don't because Charles knows the only way to get things done is to be 'in their face', and the government knows that by being in their face Charles loses a lot of support amongst New Brunswickers who 'know their place'.
Charles isn't stupid, so now he's learned that being loud and belligerent actually has results when the right opportunity presents itself, so expect more of it.
I would just like to add my two cents here as someone who has worked in and around the Legislative Assembly... the reason Charles was banned has nothing to do with him being poor or his blogg or even his harassment of MLAs but the way he treated the Legislative staff...people just trying to do their job. Trust me banning someone from the Legislative Assembly is not something taken lightly and done at the discretion of just one person or because of one incident. That should give you an indication of just how disruptive Charles was to the staff and not just the commissionaires but the clerks and librarians.
So anonymous 10:14 just what in your estimation did Charles get with his "in your face" attitude? Did he receive some kind of an apology perhaps? Some admittance of wrong doing on Mr Mann's part? No of course not. The simple fact is he did nothing wrong. How exactly did Charles earn this right to be rude? Because Mr. Mann wrote a letter to the paper supporting the people that he works for? That in your mind is enough to sanction rude behaviour towards Mr. Mann? Or are you so pompous as to suggest that rudeness towards anyone is justified if they "think" they have suffered some injustice at any time in the past?
Charles has harped for months about this supposed "bigot" and yet after a few minutes "nice chat" all is well...That is ample enough evidence of how this was never anything more than a tempest in a tea pot. Yet another example of how far Charles will go to be thought of as some poor down trodden freedom fighter...even if it means fabricating stories to get the attention he feels he so richly deserves.
Will we now be treated with endless months of ignorant David Brown diatribes now that the Mann incident has run its course?
We don't know what was said, so there's no way of knowing what was accomplished. I wasn't aware an omniscient god was frequenting this blog and seems to know everything that was said and what is in people's minds.
As for 'rights to be rude' that's called 'the charter of rights'. If Charles wants to yell things at people he's free to do so. That's Canada.
As for why he was banned, we don't know that. The above may think he knows, but again, thats just opinion. It's completely false that they won't ban you for 'single' offenses because six people have now been banned, at least one case we know was a single event of yelling from the gallery. The guy with the clown nose we don't know about, however, we don't know how abusive he was towards staff or the legislature, but he certainly can't behave any worse than the guys who are sitting in the chamber and getting paid have been behaving. Just watch them yourselves to see that.
That's why there needs to be an open procedure for banning people. People need to be able to see the evidence and find out what the truth is, not just take the word for somebody who claims they know, but never said anything before now. Perhaps Charles was 'rude', but it depends what you mean by rude. Was he preventing them from doing their job? Was he 'threatening' them? Or was he, heaven forbid, actually expecting them to do their job!
These are all things that could have been disclosed in all the cases of banning, but isn't. As anybody who has dealt with government employees on any occasion can tell you, Charles doesn't have a monopoly on rudeness, as an employer in the service industry I would have fired any number of government employees because they are so rude for no reason. They are a minority though I'm happy to say.
As for Tom Mann, the main thing Charles wanted to accomplish, as was obvious from his blog, wasn't a retraction, wasn't an apology, in fact go read the past blogs, all he wanted was to talk to him. He said that over and over again and was going to use a bullhorn to shout at him, but he didn't. Charles is the model of restraint:)
Now that has been accomplished and it was accomplished by rudeness and yelling, and when something works one time, its likely to be tried again.
We weren't there so we don't actually know the specifics of what happened. For Charles, something to think about is that from the blog it doesn't appear that he reacted until Tom was past him. So as the nice guy that Tom is, perhaps if Charles had just walked beside him and said "look Tom, now that I've got you here lets have a chat..."
We don't know whether that would have been possible. Tom knew Charles wanted to talk to him but refused, so there's no reason to think he wouldn't refuse again. If Tom is smart then he'd know that for a fella leading a protest, its not a good idea to refuse to talk to other protestors. If the press came around then they might talk to Charles instead of or as well as him and would cut into their media time, if they get any.
So its easy to see why Charles would think that 'being rude' is a way to get what he wants. It may have worked in this case, because all he ever wanted to do is talk to Tom. It's doubtful Tom can do anything for him anyway, so Charles probably didn't ask.
It's true that Charles doesn't speak for all the poor, but he does have some claim to be a spokesman for the poor since that is one of the main focuses of the blog and charles interviews them every occasion he can get. Its also true, and I suspect Charles knows it, that he wasnt' banned, and Tom didn't refuse to talk to him, BECAUSE he's poor. When poor people don't confront government, government doesn't care what they do. So long as they 'know their place' and don't rock the boat.
That's just political strategy on Charles part, and its pretty smart thinking. A lot of people may not like it, but a lot of people simply don't like those who 'don't know their place'. The point is, it works. Saying 'why are you against me' to Tom would get him nowhere, saying 'the poor' would definitely have resonance. However, technically, since Charles IS poor, then he's not incorrect to make that statement.
I do find it hard to believe that anonymous 9:28 can claim he (or she) isn't aware "an omniscient god was frequenting this blog and seems to know everything that was said and what is in people's minds." Surely their must be. Just take a few minutes and read your own proselytizations.
Its amazing how one can suggest in the first line that "we don't know what was said" only to drone on for paragraph after endless paragraph telling us your interpretation of what he must have said and even why!
I can't see any other possibility after reading your post that would explain how that could be except that you indeed must be hearing "omniscient voices". Or is it that you think your the omniscient god?
Post a Comment