Canada, a fixer’s paradise

The Guardian editorial on Stephane Dion is an oxymoronic observation of Canadian politics: The deliberately obtuse is also the deliciously astute.

This is because calling the Liberal Leadership Convention a fixer's fiesta is an invitation to call Canada a fixer's paradise. And the fixer is, of course, RCMP, who has an iconic image, an untouchable status in Canada, aided by its adept political skills and a license to eavesdrop freely.

Oh, Canada certainly hasn't let the world down with its many achievements in fixing.

1. Although I was not aware the full explosiveness of my file during Election 2004, by preemptively creating all sorts of problems for me, the RCMP guaranteed the Martin Liberals would steal the election.
2. With the delivery to the opposition MPs of the income trust investigation letter, the fixer artfully fixed Canadian Election 2006 for the Harper Conservatives. (I did not realize it then, but this installment of my blog on Election 2006 certainly has raised the issue.)
3. When the fixer can fix general elections, fixing everything else must be a cakewalk, especially with the ingratiating political and intellectual elites on its side. For example, we all know now that Cecilia Zhang trial was fixed on May 3 before the show even started.
4. Of course, with the latest Dion win of the Liberal leadership, the fixer pretty much fixed Canada. That's why we saw the fixer-in-chief decided to step down right after the "fixer's fiesta".

As for my trial confirmation hearing today? The Judge appeared to have made up his mind already to proceed with my trial as planned in one month, despite my repeated plea for an adjournment on medical ground.

1. Of all the cases on the list this morning, mine was the only one the Crown needed review before proceeding. Of course, I did not think there was any new evidence coming in. Did the Crown need the break to check with the fixer for the latest political development? -- I would suggest that the Judge and the Crown have better coordination next time so that I would not be the only one raising hand when the Judge asked if there was anyone who hadn't been called.
2. The very first words the Judge said during my hearing were that my case was old and needed to proceed as planned. -- He probably sensed I was going to ask for an adjournment because I had mentioned before the break that having me wait till the afternoon would be a hardship for me with my back pain.
3. The Crown rested as soon as she told the Judge that based on the new Information, the case would proceed summarily in the Provincial Court. -- Originally, I had chosen a judge and jury trial in the Supreme Court, which would be harder to fix.
4. As soon as I mentioned UBC LSLAP, the Judge cut me off and suggested that he knew the problem with UBC LSLAP was of a program-wide nature. -- I had to gently mention that my personal experience was different. -- Did the Judge read my blog?
5. I told the Judge that because of my back pain, I could only sit or stand for about half an hour at a time. Therefore, I did not think that I could withstand a two-day trial on January 11 and 12 as planned. I asked for an adjournment. The Judge would not budge.
6. When the Judge mentioned a doctor's note, I show the Crown and the Judge a BC Income Assistance form completed by my doctor in early October. Since my doctor had given me 6 to 9 months' time to rest, I suggested a three month adjournment. I also mentioned I had an ambulance receipt, but the Judge would not even look at it. He still maintained that my trial needed to proceed as originally planned.
7. When I told the Judge that I needed to either lay down or take a walk after a prolonged sitting or standing, the Judge said he would make necessary arrangement so that I could lay down on the visitor's bench during the trial. He would not grant an adjournment.
8. As for my problem in retaining a counsel, the Judge suggested I should be able to afford $10 for a half hour initial consultation with a lawyer through Lawyer Referral Service. But the trial needed to go ahead as planned.
9. When I said that the Judge appeared to have made up his mind before I even had a chance to present my argument, the Judge became flustered and countered by trying to mix up the timeline of our dialogues.
10. It was then the Crown came to the rescue. She mentioned that she had a letter from my Bail Officer raising the issue of my mental health. I argued that it was the Crown who raised the mental health issue first and that the Crown's reasoning at my bail hearing was ridiculous. The Crown became silent. The Judge commented that I am either exceptionally intelligent or mentally sick.
11. In the end, no adjournment for me. The Judge stressed that a warrant would be issued for my arrest if I did not show up for the trial.
12. Somewhere in the dialogue, the Judge also mentioned that I should perhaps be grateful for the Crown's decision to proceed only with one of the charges with a possible 18 month jail sentence.

I guess I am looking forward to the fix.


Update 5.5 hours later: A bit of sarcasm should be read into the above post, of course.