Shelly Glover versus the world (II) -

Shelly Glover versus the world (II)


Following Shelly Glover’s latest appearance on the national broadcaster, I asked her office to explain the Conservative’s suggestion that Liberal Mark Holland had voted against strengthening the sex offender registry. I then forwarded that explanation to Mr. Holland for his response, which he has now provided.

Here, then, those missives.

First, the explanation from Ms. Glover’s office.

Thank you very much for your email regarding Mrs. Glover’s appearance on CBC’s Power and Politics. I hope to be able to clarify Mrs. Glover’s comments regarding the Sex Offender Registry.

During her appearance on Power and Politics on April 5th, Mrs. Glover said the following regarding justice bills and the Sex Offender Information Registry: “When it comes to moving forward on justice bills we’ve been very consistent. I wish Mr. Holland would actually vote with us – the Sex Offender Registry was in committee, he voted against the strengthening of it… We’ve got to be clear that we make sure that we are consistent not only when the cameras are on, but when we are sitting in committee, you have to vote for victims rights not for the rights of the accused.”

The matter she was referring to is an amendment to Bill C-34 (An Act to Amend the Criminal Code and Other Acts) that was brought forward in committee by MP Don Davies. Bill C-34 was a package of amendments aimed at strengthening the Sex Offender Information Registry Act (SOIRA). Under SOIRA, when an individual was convicted of a sex offence, their details (including name, address, employer, etc) could be entered into a national information registry, but only if the registration was requested by the Crown and approved by the judge in the case. Because of these unnecessary loopholes, many individuals convicted of sex offenders were being left off the registry because of simple oversight by Crown prosecutors. Our government took steps to strengthen the registry by making the inclusion of an offender’s information in the registry automatic for certain offences outlined in the bill.

Mr. Davies introduced an amendment to Clause 5 of Bill C-34 that would have allowed judges the discretion to leave certain offenders off the registry. This amendment would have severely weakened the proposed changes by the government, which follows in line with what Mrs. Glover said on Power and Politics. 5 of the 6 opposition members on the committee voted in favour of this amendment to weaken the bill, including Mr. Holland and Mr. Davies. The text of the amendment can be found here and the debate on the amendment (including Mr. Holland’s support of it) can be found here.

We were very pleased that the amendment was defeated, as it would have allowed judges to leave offenders off the registry, in spite of the fact that they had committed some of the most shocking and heinous crimes that can be imagined.  As Mrs. Glover stated, we wish that opposition members would be more consistent and stop focusing on the rights of the offenders and start focusing on the rights of the victims of these deplorable crimes. Law enforcement officers need this registry to be complete and accurate in order to prevent future sexual offences, and we are very disappointed that Mr. Holland chooses to pretend that he did not vote to gut part of this bill.

I hope this clears up any confusion that you may have had about Mrs. Glover’s comments.  I also hope that this clarification is made to the article previously written.

If you need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact our office again.

Kindest regards,

Ashley Moe
Communications Assistant

And now, the response from Mr. Holland.

This is very dishonest.  I have been pushing for changes to strengthen the registry.  I voted for the legislation at every stage, including committee.

I supported a motion that would allow judicial discretion in the event that placing someone on the registry would result in a gross miscarriage of justice.  This amendment would avoid shifting discretion onto police for more minor offences where placement on the registry would be inappropriate.  Police and experts testified that as the federal list of offences is much greater, the registry would be made weaker if people were added who didn’t belong.  I voted for the amendment to make the registry stronger – not weaker – in accordance with witness testimony. When the amendment lost, I voted FOR the main bill unammended.  I certainly never voted against anything.

Ms Glover’s statement leads viewers to think that I did not support the sex offender registry in general (in fact, that is what I thought her point was until I reviewed this e-mail).  It seems her intent was to mislead and it was, in this regard, dishonest and disingenuous.  Had she been honest, she would have said that I had voted to allow judicial discretion in extraordinary cases.  To state that I am against making the sex offender registry stronger demonstrated how deep in the gutter they’ll go when playing politics with crime.

Mark Holland, M.P.
Official Opposition Critic, Public Safety and National Security


Shelly Glover versus the world (II)

  1. Off topic a bit, but giving judges the discretion to leave people off the registry if the need arose sounds quite reasonable. Some political grandstanding on both sides, I think…

  2. oh wait, I should have read Mr. Holland's response first. He was in the right, Glover was wrong.

    That's what you get for just taking people like Glover at face value, I guess.

  3. Shelly Glover is a little loose with the accusaions.

    • Shelley's a little loose with truth too. Truthy is good enough for her.

  4. Glover distorted the facts to suit her agenda which makes me wonder what kind of police officer she was. Not a good performance for a rising CONservative "star".

    • She was a public information officer going back to at least 2003. I don't know what kind of officer she was before that, but in an organization the size of Winnipeg Police Department with daily news briefings, news releases and media inquiries, she would have little to do with actual police work other than speaking to the media on behalf of the department.

      • wait a second. She said on the panel she was investigating Graham James. But media reports said that James' pardon from three years ago only came to light because someone in Winnipege came forward after the fact. Wasn't she elected in 2006?

        • I think she was referring to the original investigation for his conviction back in 1997. In public speaking and in her promotional materials she tends to emphasize her role as a rank and file police officer, but the reality is, regardless of her actual rank she was embedded wih the brass in HQ for the last several years.

          • appreciate the clarification tobyornotoby.

        • no she was elected in 2008

  5. It's when she repeats "the strengthening of it" you know her intent to mislead is intentional.

  6. I agree with Tceh. I wonder how seriously she took that whole swearing to tell the truth thing when she maintains what she said here is the truth.

    My question is why is this only being discussed on these blogs? At some point is it not newsworthy that our government distorts and mangles the truth?

    My second question is why on earth any media allow anyone to get away with saying politicians care more about criminals than they do about victims? How can any rational person actually believe this.

    • politicians and political parties are generally absent of morals, and put themselves in front of the interests of the nation.

      This is simply fact. Turning it into 'news' is difficult.

  7. She lied.

    • Yep, I saw her lips move too.

  8. seems what happened here was Glover was given some oversimplified briefing notes with the directions: Say This. So she did. Hey, she wants to be cabinet right. And did you know she use to be a cop?
    And it turned out she was wrong, despite a huge and suddenly overcomplicated explanation. I wonder if she even knows that Macleans contacted her office, and the twists her staff are turning in order to try to make it seem like Glover didn't lie. What a puppet. What a staff. More evidence that the Conservatives are being staffed by overzealous partisans who couldn't find work outside of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. Oh wait, they've turned on the Conservatives too.

  9. PUPPET!

    sorry, re-read and got angrier.

  10. so it seems that Glover, while calm, cool and collected has a habit of distorting reality (e.g., Flanagan; Holland's voting record).

    I am intrerested in hearing what people think is more egregious: Trudeau's unpolished, obnoxious behaviour in interrupting other speakers or Glover's willingness to the distort the public record in on-air appearances?

    • Being rude besmirches only ones' own reputation. It requires no redress, and no correction is necessary.

      Telling a malicious lie harms others. It requires redress, and without correction can continue to cause harm.

      For me, the liar takes the cake. Then denies taking it.

      • Well put! Liars never regain my trust; it says alot about me too, but I despise liars.

    • I don't like either – but at least Trudeau admitted almost immediately that he was wrong to do it. There was none of this doublespeak bullshit.

    • Sorry, Macleans doesn't allow the word Bull—t any more.

      What I typed was, at least Trudeau admitted he was wrong almost immediately. None of this Glover doublespeak BS.

  11. I think Ms. Glover wants Canadians to be aware that the NDP and Liberals on Committee were willing to weaken the Crime Bill by allowing Judges ( who unfortunately are often lenient with criminals ) the discretion to leave some sex offenders of the Registry.

    Mr. Holland says he voted yes to all the sex registry votes. In a weasley way he neglects to inform us that one of the yes votes was for an amendment from Mr. Davies that would have weakened the Bill. Ms. Glover was performing a public service by informing Canadians what they may expect from a NDP-Lib Coalition.

    • Good to see that you did not add "sense" as your middle name.

      One more koolaid coming up!

    • Yes, they can expect a government that will understand the meaning of the word "nuance".

      • OK…maybe this new gov`t could campaign with a " nuance " slogan.
        How about:…"" Nuance today….gone tomorrow "" ………….or maybe ……….."" We may not have principles but we`re full of nuance. ""

    • Except she lied.

      I mean, I want Canadians to be aware that you're an ass who should be avoided, but that doesn't mean I can say that you rape children and leave them on the side of the road, because as far as I'm aware there's absolutely no proof to that statement.

      Just so folks are clear. There is absolutely no proof that "common man" has raped children and left them on the side of the road. Nobody's ever found any evidence of it, and, as far as I know, the police are not investigating him for anything related to that at all.

      So if you hear anybody talking about how common man has raped children and left them on the side of the road, you should tell them that there's no proof.

      Now.. imagine if I was willing to lie…

      • Thwim has a very twisted way of making an analogy, but I`ll let it go; he was trying to be just as funny as Gilbert.

    • I think, having read the amendments, and the linked Hansard debate, the amendment was a good one. Although the bench has a vested interest in not promoting the power of the State to harm the individual (there's something to do with your decisions being overturned on appeal, but I don't recall, and certainly don't really understand it), I think the "grossly disproportionate" language was a good way of putting the burden on the defence in such a way that they would have to demonstrate that to include the convicted person in the registry would be a harm to society itself, not just the convicted person. (criminal? convict? bad guy? i'm using convicted person out of ignorance for the proper term)

      I'm glad that our Parliamentarians were willing to buck the growing trend of simply using victims as partisan tools to gain power, and to seriously consider that in a very rare instance legislation could hamper justice.

  12. Mark Holland's response is a fabrication. He and Don Davies mislead the viewers of Power Play – they did not support the Conservative Crime bill.

    • Okay, so now you want us to believe he's also a liar? Proof please.

    • This is a strategy on the American Right that unfortunately is leaking into Canada – just say stuff. True? Doesn't matter. Facts? Irrelevant. Media reports, are lazy on checking facts and even if they do lots of people hear what they want anyway.

  13. So, the amendment was meant to leave in the hands of judges the possibility of leaving someone convicted of a summary offense (not an indictable offense) off the the registry, but only if their inclusion on the registry would be "grossly disproportionate to the public interest". Well, glad we dodged that deadly bullet!

    Now, the Registry of Sex Offenders is going to include, automatically, people convicted of offenses for which the accused doesn't even have to submit to fingerprinting. Offenses for which the accused must be charged within six months of the alleged offense, or can't be charged at all. Offenses for which the maximum penalty is six months in jail and/or a $5000 fine. Of course, these people were already going to clog up the registry, but now every single one of them is REQUIRED to clog up the registry, even if a judge concludes that adding said person to the registry is "grossly disproportionate to the public interest".

    Good job everybody!

    • The 2nd amendment dealt with that, I believe. The 1st amendment was broader, and possibly could have been intended to include summary convictions, if I read Hansard correctly.

  14. Shelly Glover is an honourable woman and after doing some actual research (unlike the journalist who wrote this story) I read the transcripts from the Public Safety committee and Mark Holland DID infact try and weaken the Conservative crime measure.

    Mark Holland should apologize to Shelly Glover immediately!

    • Glover is a hack who couldn't handle real police work but loves to trade on her badge for poltics. She disgusts me.

  15. Holland makes reference to minor (sex) crimes in arguing for judicial DISCRETION, I am with Shelly Glover on this issue ALL SEX CRIME OFFENDERS SHOULD BE IN THE REGISTER and long term jail, AS WELL AS THEIR DNA . Actually my view on handling sex offenders is even stronger than that proposed by the Government

  16. From my viewpoint it is Holland trying to distort the truth here. (And I am basing this on reading the content of this site only). Holland obviously voted for an amendment to make the bill weaker when he was in committee and felt he could do so without the public eye. However, after losing his amendment he then voted PUBLICLY to support the bill. I think that's a little two-faced of him and I do not believe Ms. Glover was trying to distort the truth at all – she was merely stating what she witness first-hand in a committee meeting – something the rest of us would not have know about had it not been for the comment!

  17. Shelly Glover is on the rite path. Keep it up

  18. Shelly Glover cannot state the obvious fact that Liberals and NDP are sitting in the back pocket of NAMBLA boys. She also cannot state another obvious fact that many Liberal appointed judges are members of Canadian Chapter of NAMBLA and giving them discretion would result in having homosexual pedophiles intentionally off that list. Holland complains that many people who are included on sex offenders registry do not belong there but he does not offer any explanation or reasons for their inclusion. Reasons are very obvious as well. Ever since homosexual Ian Gilmour Scott was Attorney General of Ontario Toronto homosexuals took over Ontario Ministry of Attorney General and they are using this strategic position to criminalise heterosexual men. They are trying to skew sex abuse statistics in order to minimize prevalence of homosexual pedophilia and increase as much as they can number of registered cases of heterosexual pedophilia.
    Shelly Glover is on attack, Mark Holland is on defence but nobody dares to talk about elephant in the room; infestation and virtual take over of government organisations by homosexual pedophiles, graduates of Upper Canada College of Refined Faggotry..

  19. Glover is just another crooked cop in a long list of crooked cops. These public servants(Cops) have been bending and distorting the truth in order to meet their own deluded super hero agenda, that in their own minds they actually believe that spewing mis-truths is NOT the same thing as lying. Why do you think it has become necessary in the last 100 years to have Police Commissions overseeing cops and rogue cops bending the rules for their own objectives. It is not hard to see how cops could become frustrated. This is why it has become critically necessary to have public commissions overseeing police departments, which is not to say that these same commissions are not corruptible. I find it troubling and frightening, knowing that Serpico type Super-cops like Shelly Glover are actually in a position of power to create her own POLICE STATE to control us(out of control Canadians). I have watched her in committee on CPAC as she actually leads her witnesses. Well the Rules of Natural Justice do not allow for investigative committee's to lead witnesses in order to create an artificial Aura of Public Fear. She is doing this to further her agenda of hiring more and more and more cops, and arming them to the teeth. And that committee, is all over the subject of cigarettes and uncollected taxes. Like wholly goddamn 1933 Germany all over again, holy Christ. Sieg Heil Steven Harper. Canada is turning into a fascist extreme right wing joke, and corrupt Oil State for gods sake. Somebody stop these loonies and call an election, Pleease!