Sunday 31 May 2020

Biography of Preston Haskell, Photographer MPA, FPPO, F/PPOC

As Requested by Linkedin
Early Bio of Preston Haskell to 2010
Extended Bio from 2010
https://www.prestonhaskellphotographer.com/#/page/prestons-biography/
  Biography of: Preston Haskell F/PPOC, MPA, FPPO

...Original occupation: Professional chef
...Entered Professional Photography in 1970
...Received Craftsmen of Photographic Arts in 1976
...Received Master of Photographic Arts in 1978
...Received first Canadian Professional Photographer of the Year 1978
...Received second Canadian Professional Photographer of the Year 1981
...Owned & operated, 5 portrait studios in 12 locations and in 5 municipalities
...The first Canadian portrait studio to hire a graduate lady professional
...The only portrait studio left with professional photographers on Payroll 
...Owned and operated 1 commercial studio
...Owned and operated 1 independent framing shop
...Owned and operated a modeling school and agency for over 15 years
...Established Millpond Studio of Photography in 1986
...Founded The Niagara Institute of Photography in 1992

...Received Fellow/Professional Photographers of Canada in 1995
...There have  only been 4  F/PPOC awarded in the history of the Professional Photographers of Canada.  Montreal~St. Catharines~Toronto
...Nominated for Entrepreneur of the Year Award for 1998

      ...Established the National Protégé of the Year Award 1995
...Continued the National Protégé of the Year Award 1996
...Continued the National Protégé of the Year Award 1997
..Continued the National Protégé of the Year Award 1998
...Continued the National Protege of the Year Award 1999
...Continued the National Protege of the Year Award 2000

...The Protégé of the Year Award is a national award for Canada's top professional photography students graduating from Canadian Colleges and Universities

...Assisted over 52 would-be photographers into the profession. 36 from scratch

..      Entertained, for educational purposes, delegations of photographers from
Canada, USA, and Europe, Napa, Photographic colleges, plus The Hamilton/
Niagara Division of The professional Photographers of Ontario

...Lectured on the subject of photography throughout Canada, the USA, and France

...Self publisher of:  Portraits of Niagara     {7,000 copies)         Hard Cover
 Portraits of Niagara II  {7,000 copies}Hard Cover
 Portraits of Niagara III        (10,000 copies)       Hard Cover
 The Living Work Environment ~ Millpond
 Charter of Greed
  An Unpredictable Place- Beyond Hand me Downs
 News Alert Niagara CORRUPTION

Children of Millpond {10,000 copies} 
Hard Cover
Praetorian {The Enemy Within}

Three books in Production: 
Some of the many fine
Photographers Started
by
Preston Haskell
F/PPOC, MPA, FPPO

Started from Scratch
1.   Mr. Jody Cheel
2.   Mr. Tony Ciliberty
3.   Mr. Doug Erhardt
4.   Ms. Patricia Hildebrand
5.   Mr. Don Thomas
6.   Ms. Wally Suderman
7.   Mr. Bill Helsdon
8.   Mr. Stephen Dominick
9.   Mr. Ben Jansen
10. Ms. Vicky Barrett
11. Ms. Allisa Kinley
12. Ms. Carolyn Robinson
{BFA}!
13. Mr. Scott Falls
14. Mr. Glen Bylsma
15. Mr. Curtis Long
16. Mr. Ernie Fusco
{Former Accountant}
17. Mr. Clayton Haskell , Son
18. Mr. David Haskell, Son
19. Mr. Keven Argue
20. Mr. Brian Smyth
21. Ms. Sally Jane Wilson
22. Mr. Ron Thiesen
23. Mr. Kim Dyck
24. Mr. Greg Neill
{Former Biologist}
25. Mr. Andrew Cabor
26. Ms. Kelly Masterson
27. Mr. Matthew Lane
28. Mr. Tom Waddel
29. Mr. Stewart Bell
30. Mr. Don Lambert
31. Miss Sherree Church
32. Mr. Ben
33. Miss Tara Lisoy
34. Mrs. Arianna Pardi
35. Mrs. Heather
36. Mr. Kirby Edgar
37. Miss Shery Armstrong

! Miss Carolyn Robinson came with a 5 year BFA from Mount Allison,
still she felt that she was unemployable!

Started from College
1.   Ms. Grace Wileichuk*!
2.   Mr. Ron Ridout*
3.   Mr. Brian Gordon*
4.   Mr. Bob Barratt*
5.   Mr. Glen Doyle*
6.   Mr. Bill Terlesky*
7.   Mr. Brian Marchese*
8.   Ms. Lesley Hime**
9.   Mr. Roy Timm **
10. Mr. Jeff Brown***
11. Mr. Gerald Spence****
12. Mr. Richard Herzog****
13. Ms. Precious LaPlante**
14. Mr. Glen Doyle*

*!  First graduate female portrait  photographer to be employed as a professional portrait photographer by a general and portrait studio 1980
*         Sheridan College
**       Fanshaw College
***     Ryrson College
****   Rochester Institute
               of Technology

Length of time with Preston: 1 to 20 Years. 

Professional Photographers
"Mentored by Assimilation"
incurred
NO cost to the Taxpayer!

Several Protege went on to teach photography at Niagara College














Monday 18 May 2020

Charter of Rights ONLY for the Rich?

In our article of Monday, April 27, 2020 titled; Attack on Canadian Charter of Rights we asked, 'Now that we have determined that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law of the land protecting Canadian Citizens surely it follows to ask who is going to enforce these protections?'
.
The problem lies in the fact that our "concerned" government has created unaccountable government committees and agencies with the power to use millions of rules and regulations to abuse the average Canadian Citizen.
.
Conspicuously absent is even one entity in place to investigate and prosecute reported government abuse of the Citizen.
.
Even our municipal governments have an Ombudsman to try to keep them in check while the Canadian Citizen has nothing but their own pocketbook!
.
You will understand who exactly is going to enforce the 'Charter' protection of Canadian Citizens when you hear the deafening and revolting words "YOU had better hire a lawyer"!
.
Translation of the words; "You had better hire a lawyer" means it is YOU, the hapless Citizen (1), who must enforce the so-called protection promised in our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms! 
.
It is YOU, the hapless Citizen (2), that must take the offending Government to the Government's Court of Law at your expense, time and effort! 
.
It is YOU, the hapless Citizen (3), that must fight the offending Government which has unlimited funds and a hoard of lawyers to further abuse you!
.
It is YOU, the hapless Citizen (4), who will suffer the realization of the cost for YOU to personally 'enforce the protections promised in OUR so-called Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'!
.
The Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms is supposed be your protection against government abuse but only if you can afford to fight the same government in the government's court of lawhence the title 'Charter of Rights ONLY for the Rich?'

FYI: Russia also has 'A Charter of Rights and Freedoms'!







Monday 11 May 2020

Gun Bans ONLY Work for TYRANTS


Submission Courtesy of Elizabeth F. Marshall  
Memes inserted by News Alert Niagara

Thought of the Day, Part IV - Gun Ban Order In Council

 - P.C. 2020-298[i] – Does this regulation create an “absurdity” or, as expressed in Sullivan on the Construction of Statues, a “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?
That is for you and the Courts to decide…
 In Canada it has been stated “Today there is only one principle or approach, namely, the words of an Act are to be read in their entire context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense harmoniously with the scheme of the Act, the object of the Act, and the intention of Parliament.”[ii]
 The opening statement (preamble) of P.C. 2020-298 May 1, 2020, states:
 “Whereas the Governor in Council is not of the opinion that any thing prescribed to be a prohibited firearm or a prohibited device, in the Annexed Regulations, is reasonable for use in Canada for hunting or sporting purposes;…”
 What exactly is an “opinion” within the context of this statement?  According to Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1202, one could think that the Governor in Council’s “opinion” can be defined as:
 “3.  A person’s thought, belief, or inference, exp., a witness’s view about a fact(s) in dispute, as opposed to personal knowledge of the facts themselves. – Also termed (in sense 3) conclusion.”
But then included in definition 3 of “opinion” is “fixed opinion” (1807) A bias or prejudice that disqualifies a potential juror.”
 And has the “opinion” of the Minister of Justice biased the Governor in Council’s opinion in any way?  And does this “opinion” and the statements in the OIC create an “absurdity,” conflicts or a “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?
 Perhaps having more information on these topics might assist in a person to decide what their answers may or may not be.
 According to Sullivan, p. 328,
 “10.43   Consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair.  There is a residual category of absurdity consisting of consequences that violate norms of reasonableness, justice and equity.  As stated by Gonthier J. in Ontario v. Canadian Pacific Ltd., “…it may be presumed that the legislature does not intend unjust or inequitable results to flow from its enactments.” [1995] S.C.J. No. 62, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1031, at para. 65 (S.C.C.). … The unreasonableness and injustice of such a result was apparently self-evident to the Court.  However, it does not seem entirely absurd that, even in the absence of reliance, a legislature would intend to penalize an issuer that knowingly misrepresented material facts in a prospectus by imposing liability even in the absence of reliance.”
 In other words, the legislature and/or the G.G. may not have presumed that all firearm owner’s are criminals and yet if one continues to own said listed firearms one does become a criminal under the regulation, except, perhaps/maybe, if one is executing a “right” under section 35 – Treaty Rights, of the 1982 Constitution.  It might also be a thought that the OIC potentially will make 2.1 million licenced firearm owners’[iii] into criminals, wouldn’t it?  Could this be a “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?  
 Then there may be a conflict within the OIC.  According, again, to Sullivan, she states (p. 344 – 345):
 “11.22 The challenges of defining conflict.  When two or more provisions overlap, the courts try to give effect to each.  They do not resort to the conflict resolution strategies at their disposal unless there is a genuine conflict.  However, determining whether a genuine conflict exists in particular circumstances can be challenging.  There are several distinct contexts in which provisions potentially conflict with one another:
 …overlap between provisions enacted by the same legislative body
…overlap between executive legislation and other legislation within the same jurisdiction
 There are also distinct ways in which provisions may overlap:
 …contradiction:  one provision permits what another provision prohibits
…impossibility of dual compliance:  one provision requires what the other provision prohibits.
 …11.24  The operational conflict test as formulated by Dickson J. in Multiple Access Ltd., v. McCutcheon sets out the most stringent test for determining conflict – the impossibility of dual compliance.  Dickson J. wrote:
 ‘In principle, there would seem to be no good reason to speak of paramountcy and preclusion except where there is actual conflict in operation as where on enactment says ‘yes’ and the other says ‘no’; ‘the same citizens are being told to do inconsistent things’; compliance with one is defiance of the other.’ [1982] S.C.J. No. 66, [1982] 2 S.C.T. 161, at 191 (S.C.C.) …”
 Sullivan states (p. 349 – 350):
 “11.31  Historically, in keeping with the presumption of coherence, the courts have held that conflict should be avoided if possible.  In Tabernacle Permanent Building Society v. Knight, Lord Halsbury said that so long as the Acts under review can ‘stand together and both operate without either interfering with the other’, there was no inconsistency or conflict. …  It is not clear how these tests relate to the impossibility of dual compliance and frustrated purpose tests discussed above.
 11.23  In concurring judgment in Levis (City) v. Fraternite des policiers de Levis Inc. case, Deschamps and Fish JJ. urged the adoption of a narrow definition of conflict for provisions enacted by the same legislature.  
They wrote: ‘If, for reasons related in large part to the balancing of legislative power within Confederation, a restrictive approach has been taken to conflicts in constitutional law, the rule should in our view be applied even more rigorously where the conflicting laws have been enacted by a single legislature.  Since the legislature is presumed to know its own laws and to intend that they be applied consistently, the application of a rule favouring an interpretation that makes it possible to avoid conflicts is fully justified.
A finding by a court that a conflict exists is necessarily founded on an assumption that the legislature has been inconsistent in enacting its laws.  It is therefore only where conflict is unavoidable that a court must apply the principles of interpretation that give precedence to one law over the other, in which case the conflicting provision will be tacitly repealed or found to be partially inapplicable.’
 This analysis is grounded in the presumption of perfection – the presumption that the legislature knows everything it needs to create coherent schemes and that it does not make mistakes.  This analysis ignores the realities of the way legislation is made and the way the statute book evolves.  It ignores, for example, the fact that legislative schemes are developed, introduced and implemented by different departments with different legislative priorities.  It ignores the tight timelines and political pressures under which much legislation is drafted.  While the presumption of perfection has a legitimate role in interpretation, it should not receive more weight than it can realistically bear.”
 To the Order In Council (OIC)
P.C. 2020-298 May 1, 2020, p. 54, states:
 “… While some of these newly prohibited firearms were previously used by indi­viduals for hunting or sporting purposes, it is the view of the Government that those firearms are unreasonable and disproportionate for such purposes….”
 In this section of the OIC it states “it is the view of the Government,” if government is attempting to say it is of the “opinion” “that those firearms are unreasonable and dipropionate” for hunting and sporting purposes, why had government allowed the said newly banned firearms to, historically, be used to hunt and for sport? 
 What exactly is an “opinion” within the context of this statement? As expressed above, according to Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1202, one could think that the Governor in Council’s “opinion” can be defined as:
 “3.  A person’s thought, belief, or inference, exp., a witness’s view about a fact(s) in dispute, as opposed to personal knowledge of the facts themselves. – Also termed (in sense 3) conclusion.”
But then included in definition 3 of “opinion” is “fixed opinion” (1807) A bias or prejudice that disqualifies a potential juror.”
 And is the “opinion” of the Minister of Justice biased opinion in any way?  And does this “opinion” and the statements in the OIC create an “absurdity,” conflicts or a “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?
 Also, with the statement that these firearms cause “significant risk” to “the public’s safety” does this mean that government is of the “opinion” that every owner of these firearms will use these firearms for “…immobilizing or killing humans in large numbers” when, in Canada, there have been very few, if any, legal, law-abiding persons who have acted in this fashion?  And what of a Canadian’s right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, regardless of any mechanism or tool they may or may not use?    
 P.C. 2020-298 May 1, 2020, p. 57 – 58, states:
 “The Amnesty Order has been made … in order to afford the individuals with time to dispose of the firearms. Disposal can include: having the firearm deacti­vated by an approved business; delivering the firearm or device to a police officer; legally exporting the firearm; and, if a business, returning the firearm or device to the manufacturer.
**Other permitted activities during the amnesty period are to transport the firearm for any of the above purposes and to use the newly prohibited firearm, if previously non-restricted, [emphasis]** to hunt for the purposes of sus­tenance or to exercise a right recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (the Constitution). Individuals are no longer allowed to import the firearms listed in the Regulations. Affected owners will no longer be permitted to sell to individuals within Canada or use the prohibited firearms, and no transportation will be per­mitted except for the purposes described above. The fire­arms will have to be kept securely stored in accordance with the legal storage requirements for the classification of the specified firearms prior to their prohibition.”
 In other words, one could conceive that one may only transport the newly banned firearms to rid themselves of it, but not sell it to anyone, and yet transport of these firearms may continue if one has recognized rights under section 35 of the Constitution? But what of the rights established under the Constitution Act 1867 – do they not apply?  If they don’t is this not yet another conflict, absurdity or “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?  
 P.C. 2020-298 May 1, 2020, p. 59, states:
 “…Following the publi­cation of the Regulations, the Government will continue to engage with Indigenous groups to assess whether the pro­hibition of these firearms has a continued impact on the right to hunt affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution.”
 Could this be considered as government creating a “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?  It would seem this is stating that even after the ban is fully implemented and after the Amnesty period is completed that government may continue to negotiate with various Indigenous groups regarding this prohibition, doesn’t it?  So, is this OIC applicable to all Canadians or only select persons who are presently lawfully licenced firearm owners?  And how can this premise be allowed unless there is  
an “absurdity” or a “consequence that are self-evidently unreasonable, unjust or unfair”?
That is for you and the Courts to decide…
 .
1 http://gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2020/2020-05-01-x3/pdf/g2-154x3.pdf
.
 10.43 – “…The presumption was applied by the Supreme Court of Canada in Sharbern Holding Inc., v. Vancouver Airport Centre Ltd., where one of the issues was whether the deemed reliance provision in paragraph 72 (2)(a) of British Columbia’s Real Estate Act created an irrebuttable presumption….On its face, this provision appears to create an irrebuttable presumption, that is, a legal fiction.  As the trial Judge pointed out, there is no qualifying language in the provision, no reference to circumstances in which the reliance would no be deemed.  The fact that reliance in deemed even if the prospectus has not been received further suggests an intention to create a fiction rather than a rebuttable presumption.  However, the Supreme Court of Canada concluded that “a non-rebuttable presumption would be contrary to the legislative balancing that underlies the disclosure requirements…and would result in absurd and unjust results.”  As Rothstein J. explained:
 ‘[A] non-rebuttable presumption would allow an investor to claim reliance on a misrepresentation, even if the investor was fully informed and had complete knowledge of all of the facts.  In doing so, the issuer would be held liable for a misrepresentation of which the investor was fully aware.  This would be an absurd and unjust result, which would place issuers into the position of having to guarantee the loses of fully informed investors.’”
 11.24 “…Dickson J. offers three formulations of actual conflict in this passage; it is arguable that the first (one enactment says yes and the other says no is significantly broader than the other two).  An enactment authorizing (as opposed to requiring) an activity that is prohibited by another enactment could be captured by the first formulation but not by the other two.”
 11.31 “In Toronto Railway Co. v. Paget, Anglin J. wrote:
‘It is not enough to exclude the application of the general Act that it deals somewhat differently with the same subject-matter.  It is not ‘inconsistent’ unless the two provisions cannot stand together.”
[iii] https://www.ofah.org/2019/12/government-targets-lawful-canadian-firearm-owners/

Gun Bans only works for Tyrants



PS: 

Legal Precedent Gives Us the Right to Have Guns: Valarie Findlay