Today Wed Thu
It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 21, 2013
Thunderstorm
25°/14°		 It is forcast to be Thunderstorm at 11:00 PM EDT on May 22, 2013
Thunderstorm
19°/13°		 It is forcast to be Chance of Rain at 11:00 PM EDT on May 23, 2013
Chance of Rain
15°/4°

20 Comments

news

Newsstand: May 16, 2012

Stay home from Wonderland today kids, because it might rain. And thunderstorm. Also, because roller coasters are sheer hell. The news? Yeah: Another billionaire vies for the casino bid; Byron Sonne of the pre-G20 arrest for homemade chemicals is acquitted; an Ontario independent police complaints watchdog releases a report on the G20; and Toronto's solid waste department has a surplus, but won't be sharing the love with charities and nonprofits.

By


There’s a new billionaire on the block, boys and girls. Well, he’s not actually new, but he is the latest well-endowed candidate to join the lofty ranks of prospective bidders for the Toronto casino. Larry Tanenbaum, who you may remember from such illustrious positions as chair of Maple Leafs Sports and Entertainment (his current position), has announced he’s partial to a waterfront site—such as Exhibition Place—for the casino that might be. Like two peas in a pod, that guy and Mayor Rob Ford (who also likes the idea of putting the casino at the Ex) are.

Byron Sonne, the man arrested days before the G20 summit for possessing explosives and “counselling mischief,” was found not guilty yesterday, and was cleared of all charges against him. The Ontario Superior Court Justice Nancy Spies ruled that the whack of chemicals found in Sonne’s home could have been kept for his budding rocketry interest. So basically, he’s the 16-year-old kid in the movie October Sky. Okay, no. It was also determined the chemicals may have been intended for camping or gardening.

In other G20-related news, Ontario’s independent police complaints watchdog, Ontario’s Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD), is releasing a 300-page report that explores complaints levelled against the Ontario and Toronto police during the summit.

In addition to the city’s $292 million surplus last year, Toronto’s solid waste department has announced a surplus of $37.2 million, partially attributed to the hefty $9 million brought in by the sale of recyclable materials. (Apparently, aluminum and polyethylene were in high demand last year. Go figure.)

The extra money from the waste division is slated to go into the waste management reserve fund, but no pretty penny will be seen by the city’s charities and nonprofits, who, since the budget, are responsible for new garbage pickup fees—a development many are hotly protesting.

Comments

  • OLink

    Canada’s Wonderland isn’t even open today!

  • Anonymous

    So from the Star’s interview with Byron Sonne, his goal was to provoke the authorities into questioning him. Which they did. And then he wanted a chance to explain his actions to them. Which he got in the form of a criminal trial. So, he got everything he wanted, more or less.

    • Anonymous

      The absurd overreactions by police and crown prosecutors all point to their wanting a patsy, so their political masters could ‘justify’ the wild overspend on security theatre. So yes, we have Byron Sonne to thank for exposing all that to the light of day.

      The question now is: how do we hold police and prosecutors accountable for gross incompetence, and quite possibly corruption by their acquiescing to political interference in exchange for a munificent payday, and immunity for egregious acts of lawlessness.

      If this travesty proves anything, it is that a big house-cleaning is order.

      Or it will happen again and again, with billions more $$$ up in smoke — a pretty expensive moment of schadenfreude, don’t you think?

      • Anonymous

        I’m not sure how you can call it an absurd overreaction when Sonne’s stated goal was to provoke the authorities into interrogating him. Again, he got exactly what he wanted!

        • Anonymous

          What he “wanted” is hardly the point. The police and prosecutors are clearly guilty of wanton stupidity, incompetence, and irresponsibility. If you’re down with that.

          • Anonymous

            Sonne was not some innocent hobbyist: by his own admission, he acted as suspiciously as possible to see at what point the authorities would stop him. So I’m not seeing the “stupidity, incompetence, and irresponsibility” on the part of the authorities, since conspiracy and hoaxing are both crimes. How would you expect the authorities to distinguish between Sonne and someone who intended real harm, other than by sending him to trial?

          • Anonymous

            Acting suspiciously isn’t a reason to detain someone let alone jail them for 11 months.

            Byron Sonne is a hero to liberty.

        • Winkee

          Since when was wanting to do something a crime, let alone worthy of the treatment Sonne received?
          The foundation of our criminal system is the existence of both a mens rea (guilty mind) and an actus reus (guilty act), only one could be shown thus the questions about the flimsy charges (“conspiracy to commit mischief not committed”?!!) that were filed against him. If the police were worried about what he was planning maybe they have used some of those 10 000 uniformed police to monitor him throughout the weekend?
          Then again, the joint task force had infiltrated the groups accused of orchestrating the vandalism that weekend more than a year before the summit and still did nothing to prevent the “violence”, what exactly was the purpose of the security apparatus again?

          • Anonymous

            As you correctly note, conspiracy is a crime. It’s not — and should not be — up to the police or prosecutors to decide which laws they will and will not enforce. If you want that law off the books, write to your MP, don’t criticize the police for enforcing it.

          • Anonymous

            According to the judgment handed down, the police misapplied the laws with demented zeal; they did not enforce it. And they decide which laws they will “enforce” (as you put it) all the time. Duh.

            In this particular case, they made a whole series of egregious errors to frame a terror patsy, for self-serving reasons already stated. That is just wrong on so many levels, unless you passively accept this is a police state.

            Sonne has affirmed, at considerable personal cost, 1) that is indeed where we are heading, and 2) it’s not too late for us to fight back.

            Unless this is some kind of silly intellectual exercise for you, you had better seriously consider whether you want to be subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment.

            Are you “inciting” or “conspiring”? Hmmm? If a cop says so, then you must be.

          • Anonymous

            Where did the trial judge say that the police misapplied the law, or were overzealous? If you read the judgment, the case turns on Sonne’s intent (for instance, he’s guilty of the explosives charges if the crown shows that he intended to combine them into an explosive). Since Sonne’s acts were suspicious (deliberately so, as he admitted), the right place to determine intent is at trial.

            So just to be clear: if it’s the law that sucks, the right place to address that is in parliament, not by calling police and prosecutors incompetent.

          • Anonymous

            I think you need to read this, before making any blanket exculpatory statements on behalf of the lawless and conniving thugs whose job is supposedly ‘to serve and protect’.

          • Anonymous

            Oh sure, the police acted despicably during the G20. Totally agree. But that doesn’t automatically mean that Byron Sonne was treated unfairly; his name doesn’t appear in the article you linked. You still haven’t answered: how should the police distinguish between Byron Sonne and someone who does the same things but intends harm?

          • Anonymous

            Gee, I dunno. Sense of proportion? Common sense? Utter lack of any evidence that he intended harm? Loads of in-your-face evidence as to exactly what his real motives were, which were neither harmfull nor illegal (as the judge found)?

            Take your pick.

            See, if the cops had utilized any of those simple, time-tested law-enforcement tools, they could have spared us all the bill for a lengthy, costly, and pointless incarceration and trial, and settling the law suit.

            You might say it would have been the professional, and fiscally responsible thing to do. Except you didn’t. Why, pray tell?

          • Anonymous

            This whole ordeal underscores the fact that we need more checks and balances for police services.

            This isn’t military law we’re under. The police need to realize this.

          • Anonymous

            “Sense of proportion” is an odd standard for you to use since we’re talking about (potentially) a large quantity of explosives. Anyway, I’m furious about lots of what happened on the G20 weekend, but I’m certainly not shocked or upset that a person who went out of his way to simulate criminal behavior ended up getting charged and going on trial for it. I don’t demand that the police be mind-readers.

          • Winkee

            but what conspiracy? show me where he conspired to do anything? The police and the crown couldn’t so I assume you will not be able to. I’m not saying the charge shouldn’t exist I am saying the police overstepped their bounds.

  • Anonymous

    When do we get our casino referendum? Seems premature to court bidders for something that may not happen.

    • Anonymous

      This is a very vexed question. Current provincial regulations require that a referendum be held, and that it be held as part of the regular municipal election cycle – so in our case that would be 2014. But they are also expected to streamline the regulatory hurdles required to build a new casino before they break for the summer, and are set to remove that requirement, meaning that a referendum would be non-binding, and could be held any time.

      This is complicated by the fact that a referendum that is held separately from an existing election will cost $7 million, which nobody wants to spend. On the other hand, the last time we were thinking of a casino we did have a (non-binding) referendum, which threw cold water on the idea – so politically it’s now tricky to call for a casino but not a referendum first.

      Basically: it’s a mess.

    • Anonymous

      Marketing histrionics.