JCT: Out of the blue, one of the other candidates backed me
up about Fuhrer Tim Philp having no right to bar me from the
Rogers TV debate for wearing my party button:

>Letter to the Editor
>Brantford Expositor
>Nov 19 2007
>Ejection violated Turmel's rights

RF: As a candidate in the recent provincial election, I have
to express my opinion about the ejection of John Turmel from
the Rogers TV debate. What the cameras and public did not
see was the meeting out in the hall. All six candidates
disagreed on some of the rules of this debate.

JCT: All six disagreed on Fuhrer Philp
1) getting to spend more time on topics of his choice;
2) getting to spend more time with candidates of his choice;
3) banning party buttons and visual aids as "unfair."

RF: My opinion is that the other five candidates had their
flyers and signs. Turmel only had his props. This I do
believe was very important for Turmel's campaign.

JCT: Being able to show show the documentation backing up my
startling claims is very important to my presentation. So
valuable, it's the reason Philp decided to ban them, to
impair my presentation since I was the only one using
visual aids. I know Fuhrer Philp was aiming at me when he
changed the rules to ban formerly permissible visual aids.

RF: Debates are simply that - debates about political
opinions, so why should Turmel be excluded based on opinion?

JCT: That great question that should also be put to Sandy
Hess, principal of the Pauline Johnson High School for
banning me for wanting to promote legalisation of a
beneficial herb. Philp wasn't trying to ban my opinions,
just impair my presentation. And when I wouldn't stand for
having my presentation impaired is when he resorted to the
ban.

RF: All of the other included candidates agreed the
exclusion of a registered candidate was not very democratic
and very unfair to Turmel's rights and freedoms as a
candidate.

JCT: Dave Levac may have made some noises that sounded like
he agreed excluding his opponent wasn't right but when it
came time to show some leadership, he blew it. He even led
me on to think that I was getting on to the Brantford
University Women's debate by setting up an extra table for
me to sit at but it was just to stop me from heckling him
until the police arrived to take his opponent away.

RF: It should be noted that independents have a good thing
going for them and the riding. They don't have to follow a
specific party's platform, which means they can bring up and
represent other issues.

JCT: In my case, I've had the same rigid party program for
almost a quarter century:
1) Cops out of gambling, sex, drugs and rock & roll
2) Interest-free credit card from the Bank of Canada.
See: http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel/abprogs.htm

RF: I think Turmel is well educated and some of his ideas
deserve a listen. I think Turmel's rights were clearly
violated with the exclusion of him from most debates.

JCT: And yet, so few others seem to agree. Sad isn't it?

RF: He could have had more votes with more time in front of
people at the debate table.

JCT: What's funny is that they didn't even have to cheat me
so that I'd lose. Dave was going to win anyway. He had the
fleet of cars to drive his herd of unthinking sheople to the
polls to vote for "their Red Team." Dave didn't need to let
me be cheated. I wasn't cheated back in 2003 and he won.
He'd have still won. No, I don't think Dave let them cheat
me because he needed help to beat me, I think Dave let them
cheat me because he's a gutless wimp, like most politicians.
I can count on the fingers of one hand the major party
candidates who have stood up for a fair game and Dave isn't
one of them.

RF: I would certainly support any recommendations a higher
court may suggest.

JCT: Philp is saying I was ejected for interrupting the next
speaker without saying he'd cut me off for wearing my party
button. Having to hide the reason for his cutting me off in
their response to the CRTC sure does hint that they know
wearing a party button is not good enough reason for a rival
candidate to be denied an equitable share of the free time
pie.
Right? They wouldn't have hidden the fact that Philp cut me
off first because of the party button when they relied on
the new reason for excluding me, that of my interrupting
after I'd been cut off.

The CRTC fight does go on. I'm just waiting for the CRTC's
affidavit explaining why they didn't think they could do
anything until the cheating was officially uncorrectable.

And thanks Rob for speaking up.


--
Abolitionist Debt Slave Leader John C."The Banking Systems Engineer"
Turmel for UNILETS interest-free time-based currency in U.N. resolution
C6 to Governments in the http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration.htm
http://www.cyberclass.net/turmel USENET blog: alt.fan.john-turmel