A few weeks ago, I noticed Bill the security guy at King’s Place chatting with a cop from the Fredericton Police Force.
Bill always acts like a cop < does a good job > so I decided to take a picture.
Afterwards, I walked by and the Police officer said- Mr.Bloggeeerrr!!!
I quickly recognized the French accent so I asked - Vous parlez Francais?
He replied - Oui Monsieur!!!!
Where are you from I asked?
He proudly told me- Je viens de Gatineau, Quebec!!!!
I shot back NON...NON...NON....LES MAUDIT QUEBECOIS SONT DES POLICE DE VILLE MAINTENANT???? ARG.!!!!!!! I CAN’T TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!!
I’m certain that the poor young Police officer didn’t know what was going on???? < Poor guy! >....lol
I investigated this issue of the reason we have Quebecois doing local police work?
I mean surely there must be Acadians who can do the job???
I was told by a source that Acadians didn’t apply for the job so they had to go to Quebec.
We do need Frenchmen in the Police Force because I remember a few years ago during a protest against the hospital cuts in Shipaggan?
This is a picture of Denis Losier < One of the protesters > He and his brother died in a motor Cycle accident a couple of weeks after this picture was taken.
Click below for sad story -
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
Around 15 Police officers showed up but nobody could speak le Francais.
So? This is the reason I waited for Dan Bussieres outside of City Hall last week.
Click below for story -
target="_blank">Charles
Blog
Now you know the reason I waited one hour for my picture? I had the story but needed a pic of Dan Bussieres at City Hall!!!
Was he there to make certain that more Quebecois are hired by City Hall for the local Police Force?
This guy is a Acadian and that's a good thing.
There’s a whole wack of Quebecois working at the Legislature and now Dan Bussieres is pushing maudit Quebecois in the Police Force?
Is he trying to make his little army in the Capital?? Does he want to be a General???
Very scary stuff!!!
If there was one New Brunswicker working a L’Assemblee Nationale du Quebec? There would be an revolution till that individual was removed. Why are we allowing Quebecois to work here???
Very good question!!!
By the way? The young Police Officer from Quebec sounded like a very nice guy!!
He just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time!!!..lol
14 comments:
You always complain that people judge the poor too quickly and that the Irvings are racist or facists or whatever. That you are judged by your way of life and you say that is not right. Well I agree with you 100%.
But from reading this blog and past ones, I have come to the conclusion that you are are "two faced" or a "hipocrite" (sorry for my spelling). You are doing the same thing about people that come from Quebec. You judge them before knowing anything about them just because they come from Quebec, just like you did in this blog. I would like you to prove to me that there is no NB'ers that work in the Quebec government. I know for a fact that this is totally wrong because I have several family members that come from NB and work for the Quebec Government.
You talk about the human rights commission, well people from other provinces have the right to apply for jobs in NB and to live here, just like NBers are allowed to apply for jobs and live in other provinces.
I am very dissapointed in you because from your arcive blogs, the first year you were actually writing and fighting for good stuff, but in the past 1.5 to 2 years you have turned this into a "Look at me" blog and it has become crap, a circus show for entertainment. It's a blooddy shame because you had a great thing going on here and now people will never take you seriously again.
Yes Jennifer, you’re 100% right!!!
It was fun when I began this blog.
For a guy who wrote and got printed 500 letters to the editor?
I was very happy to be a Blogger.
Just to think that I refuse WCIE request to be a blogger.
I was sending emails with my views on different issues.
Once I got going? It was fun.
There were many issues to cover and covering I did.
Then came the camera.
I took pictures of different individuals and shared their stories.
Then one day? I landed a six months job at the Legislature.
The job lasted 4 hours until Dan Bussieres and the other Staff from Quebec ordered the contractor to get rid of me.
Well? I had a chance to work but Dan Bussieres said- Non Monsieur.
The friendshp I believe I had with Dan was officially over and the Anti-Quebecois blogs began.
Than came the arrest in Saint John which I was told that I had no right to a lawyer. I could have landed in jail for years.
For the battle for justice began in this blog.
The week after came the ban from the Legislature which is connected to a murder.
Dan Bussieres could be a fascist? < Will blog this one later. >
I blogged against Dan Bussieres and the Saint John Police Force.
These days, we are dealing with the Liberal MLA’S who sent three bouncers after me to have me harm or killed.
So? Is it a me me me blog?
Could be because if a group of people or individual goes against this blogger?
I take it as a declaration of war!!!
I will blog and blog!!!
As for Quebecois working here?
These are facts!!!!
We are not allowed to work in Quebec and that’s the way it is!!!!
Yes Charles these things did happen to you and it is a shame and I also think it is wrong that you lost your job or got arested etc...
But you come out and every person from Quebec is wrong and evil, every police man or woman from SJ is wrong now liberal MLAs are bullying you.
Instead of calling people names and complaining maybe you should look into the reasons why they asked you to leave the party (which I think you exagerating about the killing statement). Maybe you will find out that your behaviour is the reason people don't want anything to do with you.
As for taking pictures that is great, but not everybody wants their picture taken and posted on the internet and maybe that is why you are treated the way you are.
Think about it, if you owned a business or was putting on a party for your friends, employees etc... Would you want a person that has a reputation of getting in your face and complain, taking your picture and posting it on his or her blog while calling you names, over exagerating or blowing issues out of proportion all the time ect.. being at your party or walking in your business all the time? I would think that you would answer no, I know I would answer no I don't want that person there. So I can see why people don't want you around it's because of your behaviour.
And for your statement of NBers not allowed to work in Quebec, well that one I have to say that you are lying because like I said before I have family that are from NB and now live and work in Quebec. Some of them work for the Quebec government.
Well you can take this as good constructive advise or not it's your choice, but I can't support you or your causes because you are not serious or professional and I have to agree with people or places banning you and I am affraid that if you don't change your ways you will be banned from more places.
Once again? You're 100% wrong Jennifer!!!
When I arrive to an area?
I have to make a decision what I'm going to be?
A blogger? A journalist? A photographer? A activist or just plain Charles?
That evening at Sweetwaters? I was a member of good standing of the Liberal Party.
I WAS TWICE INVITED VIA EMAIL!!!!
I truly believe someone believe that I would have reacted in a ADHD style and the bouncers would have jump me.
I can't really blog the issue until the investigation is complete.
This is a very serious issue and must be dealth with.
Members of the Liberal Party assaulted by orders of the MLA'S????
It's bad enough that the Liberals connected me to a murder and this is the reason I was banned.
The issue of what happen to me at Sweetwaters could be blog for years to come.
This is what I do???
In the old days? A journalist would have been welcome with open arms.
They would have bought he or she a few beers to make them happy.
But what do the Liberals do?
They sent three bouncers after the biggest blogger and bullshitter in New Brunswick.
What o they believe I was going to do or say?
Ohhhhh???? I'm not welcome???? Ok..I'm going to go home now....sorry to bother you people.
THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!
Same as Dan Bussieres? I offered and had a petition with 1,000 signatures to settle this awful issue but to no avail.
So? What am I going to do???
I'm going to blog these issues away for years to come.
There's only one way out?
I truly understand if one day? I'm shot on the streets.
This is the only way to handle bloggers!!!
They cannot to bought.
BOY????? I'M DEBATING A LOT IN THIS COMMENT SECTION!!!!
You are getting me going Jennifer!!!!
:P
Well obviously you will not take my constructive critisim. I feel sorry for you that you truely beleive the things you say and that you can't step back a little and look at the global picture.
Well have fun Charles, I will check in once in a while for a good laugh and entertainment only because I can't take you seriously at all.
Looking forward to the next place that you get banned and what you are going to call the people that banned you.
I guess Jennifer does not Understand that Quebec Jobs Especially Provincial are Protected,They will not Hire Non Quebec Persons Unless they can find no One Qualified in the Province! Thats Discrimination. Maybe not from individual People of Quebec but the Provincial Goverment Policy is!
Also the Police since They are not Local Will follow Orders Legal or Not much better since there is no attachment to the Community!
Put Your Rose Colored Glasses back on,The real world is very Corrupt and Violent!
It`s not the fact that they`re Quebecers, but that the cops aren`T from around here.
Is there some sort of shortage of NB boys wanting to server their community?
I doubt it - didn`t we see television reports through the nineties talking about how hard it was to get into police training here. What happened to all those cadets?
Have they been shipped off elsewhere to subdue the coming wage riots?
I'd like to be critical of both Jennifer and Charles here. For Jennifer, it's an odd statement to say that you can't support any causes Charles supports just because you don't like many things on his blog (many causes here have nothing to do with Charles).
It is a 'blog', and if you read the archives you will notice that they have always been about Charles, the difference was they were less 'self centred' because Charles hadn't been falsely arrested and falsely terminated from a decent living.
It's a pretty easy job to stand on the sidelines, as we all do, and tell Charles he should be doing this or that, its a far different thing when it happens to YOU. And you can compare the amount of kicking and screaming that many posters do here and figure that if they lived under identical circumstances they'd be far worse than Charles.
I tend to agree with Jennifer's criticism. The final story here only proves (at least to me) that there was absolutely no reason to sit and wait an hour. Even the blog itself verifies that the hiring was legitimate because no acadians could be found and few cops speak french. That's pretty illogical to blame Dan Brussiere's for that.
But to Jennifer, Charles is pretty flamboyant, but he certainly makes it interesting, and has interesting points. New Brunswick clearly seems to be the 'sell out' land. Charles did mention Quebec security, not the quebec government-and of course simply give us the names of the NBers who work there and we can verify it and be done with it. Until then, Charles is free to say what he wants.
But its a huge issue. NB companies still can't bid on Quebec jobs but the reverse isn't true. NBer's in the north still can't work in Quebec but the reverse isn't true. A couple of years ago Rogers brought in 200 Quebecers to lay cable, and forestry companies brought in dozens of Quebec forestry workers-even though NB has one of the highest unemployment rates in the country (and continent).
Meanwhile, if you recall, a bureaucrat once angrily told Charles to shut up about it because NB 'does so much business with Quebec'. That's usually a tip off that there is something to the story, and this just adds to that. When acadians are heading west, why exactly aren't they applying for police positions? Does anybody know? Has anybody asked? Has it ever been in the media? Has Jennifer asked? Why doesn't she, will she take that constructive criticism?
New Brunswick sells out virtually ALL its resources for the lowest bid. In exchange for some jobs they've made a deal with Saskatchewan Potash which cuts royalties even more all so all the potash can be quickly shipped out (and then bought back later as higher priced fertilizers). Same goes with peat moss in the acadian coast which does considerable environmental damage. Same goes with forestry where five companies get to ransack the woods even while not running their mills anymore. Ask one of the 40,000 small woodlot owners-who are NBers, what help they get from the government. Irving press proudly compliments Graham for 'standing tough' and 'refusing to help out the forestry industry' now that Irving has gotten a good part of those quarter of a billion in technology tax credits that Lord handed out.
Meanwhile the govenrment excitedly awaits a massively polluting new refinery that no north american govenrment in its right mind has ever allowed in the past twenty years, all while missin g out on industry growth in the knowledge sector like RIM which is going to Nova Scotia and providing more jobs (at higher wages) than the refinery jobs.
These are all big issues and Charles is one of the few actually talking about them (and yes, they are all connected). And yes, Charles raises it in his usual flamboyant way. I agree with Jennifer, I wish Charles would calm down because I have a suspicion that the government is very happy Charles is targeting dan because he doesn't blog on issues nearly as much as he used to. Sorry to say, but Charles has been 'politically neutered'. And here was a guy who almost single handedly got a piece of legislation introduced, that is REAL political power.
But again, its easy to stand outside and expect somebody else to do all the work. Enough things have happened to Charles to make his 'self centredness' completely justifiable. He SHOULD be as angry as he is, and angry people don't always do the right thing at the right time. And to be fair, Charles has been through so much that he's almost symbolic of the poor, its a perfect example of what the govenrment and the various agencies do when the poor 'get out of line'. Canada is not so different than other countries in that respect, although a little less violent (though that is changing).
Finally, for Jennifer, Charles is at least very good at publicizing events, so if you want more attention on issues there is a simple solution-get more involved yourself and send the updates to Charles, who will certainly put them on here. Just don't be surprised if Charles doesn't change his tactics and blog around for a bunch of couch potatoes like us who sit on the sidelines and expect other people to do the hard work of changing society for us.
Wow thats one very large amount of B.S. your spreading mikel. If half of those "things" that happened to Charles were true then you MIGHT have an argument. But considering most are fabrications of an over active mind it can hardly be grounds for justifying his actions. He should be held accountable for his words and actions just like everyone else.
If you want to actually debate it then feel free, just saying 'bs' doesn't do much. I don't know what 'half of those things' means, we know what ALL of the things that happened to Charles are-we know that he was falsely arrested, the judge said so, we know that he was banned from the legislature immediately afterwards with no public process or any evidence given (as were five others). We know that he was fired from a job at the legislature, although it can be argued about the reasons.
As for being held accountable, thats essentially what the comments section are for, and Charles certainly doesn't censor too often judging by them. If you are talking about him being arrested or something that is another issue entirely, but if all you mean is that people should criticize him then I don't think there is any person in New Brunswick who gets as much criticism as Charles does publicly.
But in the end it is a free country and within the law he is free to do as he pleases. Like I said, I agree with Jennifer and now really have nothing but sympathy for Dan Brussieres (except for getting Charles fired, but even that isn't so surprising and once again the fault rests with an inadequate human rights commission which would allow it to happen without an investigation and a legislature that would allow a head of security to fire somebody without due process. There are former criminals -several in fact- who are now elected MLA's for heavens sake).
As for his actions, so long as they are non-violent and don't hurt anybody they don't need justification-thats what living in a free society is all about. I would say 'as long as they are legal', but we have the strange case where a person's stepping on a piece of public property would result in charges of 'assault', so the 'law' here needs more justification than Charles does.
Jennifer's comments were highly critical, but also not accurate. She said that "you judge them before knowing anything about them" even though Charles talked to them and said quite plainly the person 'was a nice person'. That's hardly being judgemental. His issue is a valid one, NB has high unemployment, why aren't there enough french speaking police in a bilingual province? If the media had been doing their job then perhaps 'we' wouldn't need Charles to bring up this issue (and it is an issue, regardless of how you feel about it).
It is true mikel that the false arrest of Charles is in fact a "known" but aside from that not one of your other examples are in the least. Your comments on the job he lost and his banning are both based only on what you have heard Charles say. You nor I know both sides. It is easy of course to hear Charles speak about how he was unjustly treated as he is free to say what he wants and you know full well no government would ever be able to do the same. Unless of course Charles decides to walk into the legislature building some day. Now if you wish to believe Charles then of course that is your right..(as you say it is a free country). But, to suggest they are reasons to justify as acceptable the majority of what Charles posts now is wrong. There was a time Charles and his blog had some social relevance but that time has long gone. A simple scroll down through the postings shows that clearly. The closest anything comes relevance is when he re-posts from his old days in front of the legislature. To argue that it is acceptable to ignore the silliness that now fills this blog..(Liberal MLA'S want me Killed...endless Dan rants) actually does a disservice to Charles. If you truly want him to be respected then you have a responsibility to point out how badly things have gone with his blog. Maybe you might even find out that its not the causes at all but the attention that Charles really craves.
The others are both factual, I know the guy who offered Charles the job and who fired him. That was blogged long ago before you 'joined' the blog. The banning was also covered by the press. It is simply a fact that Charles was banned by the legislative committee without any kind of public trial, without any evidence for the banning being given (otherwise we'd be debating that), because of course none is necessary-they can do what they want. You admitted as much when you say we don't know the reasons. The reasons MAY be valid, we simply don't know, it wasn't made public and Charles was never given a chance to defend himself. That is policy, we even saw the former security manager state that it is a NEW policy since he always tried to ban people back when people were practically banging down the doors to get at McKenna but the elected officials refused to do so. But as I've often told Charles, it is the elected officials who banned him, not the guy who pushed it who are at fault.
Again, there MAY have been justifiable reasons for everything the government did to Charles, we simply don't know. The reasons they made public certainly don't cut it. So again, when a government uses dictatorial powers against individual freedoms then the onus is always on THEM to justify them, which they didn't do. The world expected the government of Myanmar to justify shutting down blogs and arresting people, that is the nature of justice. IF people are to be robbed of rights, then there has to be a clear cut reason for it and it certainly has to be public-none of this was. THAT is the issue.
For your other comments, you should reread what I wrote because I didn't say anything of the kind that you imply, I've criticized Charles probably more than anybody-yourself included.
I've said that I agree with Jennifer about this post, I don't know what more you want. I simply don't badmouth Charles view, because it is HIS view. In a free country he can say what he wants, thats his RIGHT. You may not like it, I may not always like it, and Jennifer doesn't seem to. But nobody has ever said to stop criticizing Charles, only to understand why he does what he does and to respect that, just as they respect your right to write whatever you want. WE could be the same, and gripe that YOUR posts don't have social relevance (and they certainly have far less than Charles') and add nothing to the blog and we could tell Charles to stop posting them. However, its your right, and Charles is good enough to post them-thats social relevance right there.
But like I told Jennifer, if you want 'social relevance' then the same criticism you throw at Charles could be thrown at you. Get off your backside and stop posting crazy complaints and get posting 'socially relevant' things. Call up the East Coast Music Awards and tell them you'd like Charles to be there. You see the pictures of Willie O'Rea, so its clear that Charles provides a valuable service. There is nowhere else that y ou will be able to type in Willie O'rea and get such coverage-even ten years from now.
And of course there are LOTS of posts here, not just Dan and the liberals. And of course the liberals sent him two invitations and then we saw the result, so its not like Charles was instigating anything. but we see tons of pictures of daily life, we've seen lots of postings on the Bathurst tragedy-more than most media, Willie O'rea as well as lots of issues like the downtown liquor store, snow removal and on and on. So its far from the case that the social relevance is gone, in fact the instances you site are pretty few and far between in a blog which usually has about four or five posts a day-so lets not be melodramatic.
The same goes for the Harvest Jazz and Blues festival. In fact I'd argue just the opposite, compared to Irving-which doesn't even have past articles online, Charles is about as 'socially relevant' as you can get. Charles just has a particular slant because he's involved in most of these issues, and of course we see that the showboating keeps lots of people coming back for more. Again, I sometimes don't like how he plays up that slant, but its a free country, and its nothing if not entertaining, and I suspect Dan Brussieres' is well paid for his troubles and probably now gets as much support from his notoriety as he would get derision. I said before I have nothing but sympathy for Dan but that's not exactly true, I have far more sympathy for Charles from what the government has put him through than I do the government for what little he puts them through. They are well paid and can easily avoid the blog, the most they face is having their picture taken. People face far worse.
Like I said, its unfortunate Charles has been 'politically neutered', but its the government that did this, Charles didn't ask for it, and did nothing in the first instance to deserve it. If people made more noise then perhaps the govenrment would have backed down and none of this craziness would have been the result, but coulda woulda shoulda. Charles knows he's on his own, and he's trying to make the lives as difficult for them as they did to him in the only way he can, so there you have it.
But if you want to SEE social relevance of the kind that you like, then DO somethign socially relevant and send it to Charles and I guarantee he will b log it-thats what he does. But don't expect him to change his blog around to suit people who do nothing to help him and don't even seem to like him-would you? Giving 'constructive criticism' is not doing him a favour, it doesn't help him out or make his life easier. He's a guy on welfare going up against what appears to be at least a non-representative government, if you really want to help him be socially relevant there is lots that can be done.
Mikel you really have to do something about those rose coloured glasses you wear. You have written paragraph after paragraph in an attempt to justify the actions that in fact should not be justified. You choose to ignore what is obvious and that which most people see clearly. Charles is himself the author of the majority of his problems (perceived or otherwise). He simply reaps what he sows but chooses to blame everyone else and you make the excuses for him. It is of course somewhat entertaining as is witnessed by his popularity and by the number of comments critical of his increasingly ridiculous statements.
More to the point, It is obvious that he has no problem with that. Charles has discovered that making these kinds of statements gets him much more attention than any number socially responsible activities. This is the choice Charles has made with his blog. Bad comments, good comments there really all the same as long as someones paying attention. It is actually people like yourself mikel that are by far the sadder story as you actually still think you see something relevant when in fact it is long gone. So save yourself the wear and tear on your fingers and actually spend some time reading what is really in here...If anyone needs a good laugh it appears it would be you. At least then you could thank Charles for that and not be making excuses.
Just the opposite is true,as Charles 'popularity' attests-you can read the comments on several posts above, many giving him credit, and many wishing him well. Most people are aware of what Charles does for the community, which is why there are very few critical comments- most are from you. In the cases where he goes overboard, most people simply ignore it and move on, its entertaining at least. And many more give him the benefit of the doubt, especially if you've been on the 'receiving end' of the bureaucracy. It may be melodramatic, but nobody gets hurt.
However, it should be pointed out that Charles did NOT deserve what he got, whether his subsequent actions are overblown or not. That's like taking away all of a poor man's resources and then criticizing him for stealing a loaf of bread. This blog was churning along quite nicely, as you state yourself. Charles was almost singularly responsible for getting a new Residential Tenants Act, and I think that is the real reason for his arrest and ban-he was simply becoming too damn good at being a lobbyist.
Imagine what else he'd get into if that were to continue. He certainly didn't deserve to be fired from a job no matter the reason (unless he wasn't doing a good job, which isn't the case). He certainly didn't deserve to be arrested, even the judge attested to that, and everybody knew it beforehand and yet the government refused to drop the charges. He certainly didn't deserve to be banned from the legislature (unless there is somethign we don't know).
So yes, I defend him, mostly simply because you seem to have a real persecution against him, which should make anybody wonder who you actually are. Like I've said, I criticize him right here when there is something to criticize, and defend him when people like Jennifer state things out of context.
It's actually quite remarkable how little charles is responsible for what happens to him, in most cases he is behaving quite benignly so its strange the government has such a burr in their butts about him. Charles is certainly a pain in the ass, but not letting him into a christmas party and not letting him take pictures with other media is just plain stupid. Who cares if he takes pictures? And he's a member of the liberal party, I know, because I gave him the ten bucks to join-so there is no reason he shouldn't be allowed into their party. He may have been melodramatic in his response, but he certainly 'didn't ask' to not be let in.
But apart from that Charles really doesn't 'get what he deserves'. After all, he doesn't get paid at all, and on many occasions his blog is worth as much as the Irvings papers. Hell, if he did more audio interviews he might well be more of a resource than the CBC..and all this from one guy on welfare.
But its true, I find many headlines over the top. What I'm not yet convinced of is whether Charles is fully aware of that and does it for the sake of a headline and the predictable comments that result-after all, the only thing worse than negative comments would be no comments at all. And I'm not sure which is more entertaining, seeing what Charles will come up with, or seeing the inevitable comments, both are quite entertaining so I get plenty of laughs.
But its a free country, if you think we're all sad for enjoying this blog and thinking it important, great, I hope whatever beliefs you have make you happy. I don't live in Fredericton and its great to be able to see all the stuff going on, its great to see tons of pictures of Mazucca's, which I'll never see again and which only had two pictures in the paper (and of course none on the CBC).
I think its great to be able to see Charles have a blog about the mayor and have the mayor reply. I think its very socially relevant to have pictures showing the state of many trails and sidewalks when they are not plowed-and when they are. I think they are very socially relevant. I don't think its as socially relevant when Charles has posts about Dan, depending of course on what the issue is that he's discussing-this one I think was quite important.
The only thing you've really faulted him for only makes up less than ten percent of the blog. Just go look at the top ones right now, theres a story about bus routes, and numerous stories about drug use. Thats very socially relevant-but I don't really know how you define socially relevant, maybe you just mean he should be only talking about ADD non stop. Apart from that, its pretty clear how socially relevant his blog is, people wouldn't be coming here if it weren't. It certainly isn't THAT entertaining, there's millions of blogs out there and an unlimited source of distraction.
Maybe he does like the attention, good for him, I hope it makes him happy, lord knows money never will, a nice house and car and good reliable food certainly never will, so hopefully he enjoys what little notoriety he gets.
Post a Comment