text:
OTTAWA, Thursday, June 13, 2019
The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, to which was referred Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting), met this day at 10:30 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Judith G. Seidman (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Ms. St. Germain, we'll start with you.
Monique St. Germain, General Counsel, Canadian Centre for Child Protection: Good morning, chair and distinguished members of the committee, Thank you for giving our organization the opportunity to provide a presentation on Bill C-84.
I am General Counsel for the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, which is a national charity dedicated to the personal safety of all children that has been operating for over 30 years. I am here to express the centre's strong support for Bill C-84 and to speak specifically about our lens into the offence of bestiality.
Our agency operates Cybertip.ca, Canada's national tip line to report the online sexual exploitation of children. The tip line is a central part of the Government of Canada's National Strategy for the Protection of Children from Sexual Exploitation on the Internet. Our analysts assess online content tied to crimes against children, which content includes acts of bestiality.
By operating Cybertip.ca, our agency is a witness to the countless ways in which children are sexually victimized online. Since its inception nearly 17 years ago, Cybertip has processed over 2 million reports involving online crimes against children. This includes child sexual abuse content detected by Project Arachnid, an innovative tool that finds where child sexual abuse images and videos are being made publicly available on the Internet and provides notice for takedown.
We reviewed what Cybertip knew about bestiality imagery. Over a five-year period, Cybertip.ca assessed imagery depicting 192 different sex acts that involved an animal and a child. Nearly 80 per cent of those acts did not involve penetration; 55 per cent of the images depicted oral sex acts. These images and videos involve real children, real animals, and they are degrading to both the child and the animal. Bestiality content, along with material depicting bondage and sadism, is considered the most harmful form of child sexual abuse material. Possessing such content is typically an aggravating factor when sentencing an individual who possesses such content.
After the D.L.W. decision was issued, our agency reviewed reported Canadian criminal case law where sexual contact with an animal was mentioned, or the individual had collected imagery showing sexual acts involving an animal and a child. The highlights of that review were provided to this committee in advance.
Notably, 82 per cent of the Canadian cases that involved in-person bestiality activity also involved the sexual abuse of a child. Such a high level of crossover is meaningful from a public safety and risk management perspective and is worth exploring further. In addition, our study confirmed what the images assessed through Cybertip had told us: non-penetrative activity is more common when a child is involved. Just like child sexual abuse, technology is increasingly playing an important role in inciting and facilitating these offences. Moreover, dogs, typically the family dog, is the animal frequently targeted for this particular offence.
Our organization regularly monitors reported criminal case law and media reports of charges, and we know that cases involving bestiality — either as a hands-on offence or as part of a child pornography offence — is increasing. This problem is not as rare as we might like to think, and it is not going away.
It is imperative that we learn more about the way in which this type of offending occurs, and how it ties in with other offending. Our paper is a start, but there is so much more still to do. This bill is a very good start.
We have four reasons why we support broadening the definition of bestiality.
First, any sexual activity with an animal is harmful, to the person and to the animal. We know this from the work that we do with survivors of child sexual abuse. Limiting the offence to penetrative activity means we miss so many other forms of harmful sexual behaviour. It also sends the general message that anything less than penetration is acceptable. This is not okay.
Second, removing the penetration requirement will bring this offence in line with virtually every other sexual offence in the Criminal Code.
Third, the definition of bestiality impacts the application of other provisions in the Criminal Code that incorporate section 160 by reference, such as section 161. Protective provisions such as section 161 are weakened and cannot operate as intended if the ambit of the bestiality offence stays narrow.
Fourth, when sexual abuse includes an animal victim, both the sentence imposed and the criminal record of the individual must clearly reflect that.
In closing, we strongly believe that bestiality is a much bigger problem than any of us realize, and that the cases reviewed for our paper are just the tip of the iceberg. The law, as it currently stands, is not at all adequate. The definition of bestiality must be broadened — and quickly — to reflect modern realities. We urge this committee and Parliament to ensure that nothing holds up the passage of this bill. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Now we'll go to you, Ms. Labchuk.
Camille Labchuk, Executive Director, Animal Justice: Good morning. I'm an animal protection lawyer and the Executive Director of Animal Justice. We are Canada's only national animal law organization, and we appreciate the opportunity to be here today.
Animal Justice works to ensure that animals have a voice in Canada's legal and political systems. We work with citizens and legislators to improve animal protection laws in the country. We push for the vigorous enforcement of existing laws and we fight in court to protect and enhance the interests of animals. It was in this context, going to court, that we first became engaged with the issue of bestiality.
In the fall of 2015, we were the only intervenor in the Supreme Court case of D.L.W., which brings us here today. We had asked the court to interpret the bestiality offence broadly to ensure that all sexual contact with animals was captured by the offence. The decision was released three years ago this week, and unfortunately it identified a legal gap, namely, that sexual abuse of animals stopping short of penetration conduct was not covered by existing laws.
After the D.L.W. decision, I think it's fair to say that Canadians and people actually around the world were shocked that something so appalling as the sexual abuse of animals could be considered legal in this country. We heard from countless people who just could not believe this.
But to us the outcome was actually not surprising at all. The Supreme Court was put in the position of interpreting what are seriously outdated laws in this country. Our cruelty laws date back to the 1800s, and they haven't been significantly updated since the 1950s. I note with some optimism that this actually finally changed on Monday, when the House of Commons passed Bill S-203, which is a national ban on keeping whales and dolphins in captivity. It's the first serious animal protection legislation passed by Parliament since the 1800s.
The D.L.W. case was a headline-grabbing example of many of the ways our laws let down animals, but there are countless other ways that this happens as well. The animal cruelty laws we have in Canada have fallen tragically behind our Western nations and behind our own values as Canadians.
This is tragic because people in this country do care very much about protecting animals, and the sentiment is only growing the more we learn more about their social and cognitive capacities and how they suffer at our hands. We have no animal protection act in this country, something that most other Western democracies do have. And Canada is one of the few countries, especially within the Commonwealth, that has not substantially reformed our animal cruelty laws even within the last decade. Indeed, most Canadian provinces have done this as well with their animal protection rules. The U.K., Australia, New Zealand, for instance, are all making radical attempts at bringing their laws in line with modern values.
I was pleased to hear the Minister of Justice testify yesterday and emphasize his personal commitment to overhauling animal protection legislation in Canada more broadly, not simply focused on the cruelty protections but looking more holistically at the picture and seeing where the law can evolve. He appropriately recognized that Bill C-84 is only a first step, and a small one at that, because this country does need to bring laws into the modern era. The vulnerable animals who are suffering deserve a timeline and clarity on the next steps that the government has promised in terms of getting this work done.
I'm happy to elaborate on other deficiencies with our animal protection laws if you wish in the question period, but for now I'll move on to the specifics of Bill C-84.
We support Bill C-84 in its current form. It accomplishes what it set out to do, which is to criminalize all forms of bestiality, sexual contact with animals involving humans, and closes loopholes that make it easier to prosecute animal fighting. I won't spend too much time talking about the specifics of what it does because I think you've heard from enough witnesses who understand those details, but we support what the bill does. The proposed definition of bestiality is strong and covers all sexual contact. It recognizes that animals are vulnerable and cannot consent to sexual contact and that there is always a risk of harm involved with the offence of bestiality.
The animal fighting provisions are also strong and accomplish what they set out to do.
Animal Justice previously proposed two amendments before the House of Commons Justice Committee when we testified back in February, and those were happily adopted. I think those strengthen the bill. The first was to empower judges to ban bestiality offenders from owning, having custody or control, or residing in the same premises as an animal in the future, for a period of time that the court considers appropriate in all of the circumstances. This is a critical tool that's already available to judges who are sentencing other animal cruelty offenders, so it makes sense to include bestiality in that as well.
Many prosecutors will tell you that one of their top priorities, even more than jail time, fines or other penalties that they get for animal cruelty offenders, is simply getting that order, what's known as a prohibition order, keeping people away from animals in the future. It's a preventative measure and a good thing.
The second amendment that was happily adopted was repealing section 447(3) of the Criminal Code, which was a harmful provision requiring any cocks seized from a cockfighting operation to be automatically killed without regard to their individual circumstances.
We viewed this as needless because it tied the hands of authorities. Each individual animal is an individual with individual circumstances and separate needs. We already treat offenders as individuals when we sentence people who have been convicted of offences. It's only fair that, at the very least, we treat animal victims of offences as individuals as well and treat them with compassion. Rescued birds may be appropriate for rehabilitation. There are sanctuaries that can take them where they can receive a high quality of care and enjoy a high quality of life.
I will wrap my remarks up at that and will be happy to answer any questions that you might have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you both very much for your presentations. We'll now proceed to questions from senators. I'd like to remind each senator that you have five minutes for your question and your answer, and then, if time permits, we'll go to a second round.
I'd like to begin with the critic, Senator Boyer.
Senator Boyer: Thank you. I'm the sponsor of the bill. I have a question for Ms. St. Germain, and it has to do with your Cybertip.ca. That sounds like a very effective tool that you're using at the moment.
What I am wondering about is the online aspect. Does any of this originate in Canada, on Canadian servers? My curiosity comes from wondering if this bill will be able to encapsulate the online aspect of the abuse that you're seeing, and as long as it's on Canadian servers. I'd like you to comment on that.
Ms. St. Germain: Cybertip.ca was set up to process reports from Canadians about online crimes against children. In that context, a lot of what Cybertip.ca reviews are materials that members of the public believe to be child pornography and meeting the definition under 163.1 of the Criminal Code. If the picture or video includes an animal, that is caught already under the child pornography provisions.
The definition of bestiality, while very narrow in the D.L.W. decision, does not implicate on the child pornography side. However, where there is still a gap is in the connection of bestiality pictures or videos that don't involve a child, and there's a lot of that out there. So as far as I know, there isn't anybody who is accepting reports or investigating sites that post primarily adults with animals and sexual activity. Because of the nature of the Internet, oftentimes you can't tell where an image or video originates, and so the location of the server is not really the most critical issue.
For example, one of the things we do with child pornography is we send notices to hosts that we believe to be hosting child pornography material. For the most part, many of those hosts are quite compliant with taking down the material.
One of the issues we have is that in Canada, because we don't have a clear prohibition against bestiality pornography, unless you can put it into the obscenity offence or fit it into child pornography, there is a gap there.
Senator Boyer: I have one quick question for you, Ms. Labchuk, and it has to do with the sentience of animals and our legal framework. Are there biases in our legal framework that prevent us from appreciating the sentience of animals? Can you elaborate?
Ms. Labchuk: That's a good question. I would say our legal framework inherently recognizes to some extent that animals are sentient. I say that because we would not have any animal cruelty or protection laws whatsoever if we didn't recognize there was a reason that we're protecting them from being caused to suffer or feel pain or receive any other injury. So I would say that, as a baseline, our laws do accept that animals are sentient and can suffer because we prohibit the causation of suffering, but that they don't go as far as they need to.
Many other countries are now recognizing explicitly that animals are sentient in their laws, and this is symbolic to some extent, but it is still a positive step and symbolically important to people and to animals.
I would say that one issue people are often concerned about when they start thinking about our animal protection framework is that animals are still considered pure property under the law. In the Criminal Code, offences against them are housed in the offences against property section, which doesn't really accord with how we now think of animals as individuals and not necessarily simply pieces of property that people own.
For instance, other countries, instead of including animals in general criminal codes, sometimes have their own animal protection acts were where all of the offences involving animals and the protections that countries want to see them have been housed in one separate area together so it's clear what their purpose is.
Senator Eaton: I have a question for both of you, but I'll start with you, Ms. Labchuk, following on Senator Boyer's question. You talked about New Zealand and Australia being ahead of the game or being certainly ahead of us. What have they done, what are they doing differently that's not included in this legislation?
Ms. Labchuk: The legislation is pretty narrow, so there's quite a lot of aspects covered in other countries that—
Senator Eaton: Could you give me two or three points that they have?
Ms. Labchuk: Sure. One example in other countries, we often see a national animal protection piece of legislation where everything is centralized and it's very clear what one must do to comply with the law and what animal protections are available. More significantly, it's important to recognize that in Canada most animal use is unregulated. We don't have national regulations dealing with the protection of animals on farms, for instance. What we have are laws that kick in when an animal is transported to slaughter and when an animal is being slaughtered. But from the second they're born until the day they're transported, there wouldn't be anything there in federal law that would assist animals.
You could say the same things for federal standards for laboratories. Right now there's no legislation at the federal level that affects animal use in the research industry. At least 4 million, likely quite a lot more, are used in this capacity and we don't have federal rules for that. There are voluntary mechanisms and oversight by non-profit agencies but no actual laws that can be enforced.
The exotic pet trade, for instance, is something where there aren't often restrictions on specific animals coming into Canada for use in the exotic pet trade. The federal government has often conceded to the provinces the ability to regulate these things and hasn't stepped into the sphere itself, which in many cases it should do. Some of these issues are addressed in other countries.
Senator Eaton: Thank you very much.
Ms. St. Germain, I'm curious as to the link between animal abuse and child abuse or other violent crimes against people. There is evidence of it in cases such as Luka Magnotta or John Wayne Gacy. Is animal abuse a gateway to the sort of desensitization process that leads to violence against people?
Ms. St. Germain: I think that might be something that's really a better question for somebody who has a psychological background. What I can tell you is that in terms of the case law that we reviewed for our paper, as well as in terms of the incidents we're aware of that are proceeding through the courts now, there certainly is a lot of crossover between hurting animals and hurting people. In some instances the individual who is the offender will be abusing both the animal and the person at the same time, so compelling the person to commit an act of bestiality with the animal. In some instances, the individual will be abusing individuals separately from the animals, but they will be engaging in both activities.
One of the things we found in our paper is that a tremendous amount of serious offending was going on with some of the offenders who were being caught into this provision. We likely don't know enough about this issue at this point in time, due in part to the fact that the data collection is sort of all over the place in terms of where we have information about individuals who have committed sexual crimes against animals.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here.
I want to know whether Bill C-84 goes far enough, because now is the opportunity to really come down on sexual offences involving animals and bestiality. Do we go far enough in terms of penalties to stop it? You mentioned earlier that the last law was in 1950. Does it extend to include Canadians who commit offences overseas? A lot of these things happen; from here, they go to Asia or South America and do the same thing that we stopped here.
Ms. Labchuk: That's an interesting question, senator. I'm probably not the best person to answer questions about the technicalities of criminalizing Canadians' conduct overseas. I know there are issues that can arise, both constitutional issues but also with respect to the way those offences are investigated. That might be a question that perhaps department officials can answer.
I think Bill C-84 sets out what it intends to accomplish, which is to make sure that bestiality committed in Canada is prosecutable. I think it does that quite well. I think it does the same thing for animal fighting. It closes loopholes and takes away one barrier.
One thing we often see when it comes to the commission of offences against animals is that we have structural difficulties in detecting and prosecuting them in the first place. Chief among those is that animals can't report abuse they're experiencing, so they rely on people to report that abuse for them. Oftentimes, animals are kept behind closed doors, so there wouldn't be access to the public to oversee their condition. That's a structural barrier that, frankly, this bill certainly can't do much about.
However, what this bill does do is remove the barrier to conviction that existed by virtue of our outdated and poorly drafted laws. That's quite a good thing.
Ms. St. Germain mentioned a few moments ago the prospect of potentially considering bestiality pornography within the purview of Canadian criminal law, and that's an issue we have given thought to. I know that constitutional issues arise there as well. It would be an interesting issue, I think, for further study.
Senator Oh: Any comment, Ms. St. Germain?
Ms. St. Germain: Picking up on what Camille said, I think looking at the bestiality pornography issue would be an important next step after this bill gets passed. The reason we say that is I think there are a lot of parallels in terms of what was observed in connection with child pornography when it was specifically criminalized in the code, so once we stopped relying on obscenity to criminalize child pornography and we actually had a stand-alone provision for it.
I think a lot of the arguments that were made at the time to criminalize child pornography would be equally applicable to bestiality pornography in that this is the type of pornography that could incite offences and can groom individuals, particularly children, into thinking that this type of activity is okay or that everyone does it. Certainly we've seen evidence of that, which is detailed in our paper, in terms of offenders sending to children links to bestiality pornography to try to get them to do it, or engaging in online luring with a child to get them to sexually abuse their own pet.
Senator Oh: Do you think that the Criminal Code should be tightened up again to be tougher on offenders?
Ms. St. Germain: I'm not going to speak to sentencing because that's obviously an individualized process that judges engage in. In terms of penalties, obviously whatever penalty is set by Parliament does provide some sort of gauge for judges in terms of the seriousness of the offence. But in every case, they're going to look at the specifics and the particulars of the offence.
I do think this bill is an important first step, because the definition of bestiality reflects upon so many other provisions in the code.
For example, a moment ago I mentioned online luring. For online luring, one of the offences that can be facilitated is bestiality. If the definition of bestiality remains narrow, then the only time the online luring will be criminalized is if you can say that it was bestiality to the point of penetration, which is not acceptable.
Senator M. Deacon: I have a question, Ms. St. Germain. You shared with us a document from your organization that gives some of the history, story and the numbers that surround what we know, and we know that we don't know the whole story.
At the end of that you had five recommendations. I keep going back to that document. When we look at bills, we look at how to make bills better, and we have something called observations.
Do you see those five recommendations as natural next steps for the implementation process of this bill? Is there anything you would alter, adjust or think about at this moment?
Ms. St. Germain: No. The five recommendations we included are natural next steps. I want to be clear, though, that I think the passage of this bill is absolutely job one. Once this bill is passed, there are ideas we have included in this document, as well as in our paper, that warrants further study.
If I were to pick out one, it would be on the risk assessment side of things. Sexual offences against animals are not currently captured under so many of the risk assessment tools that are being used. Because we rely on those tools so much for public safety, we really need to take another look at whether or not that makes sense.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. The risk assessment one jumped out, because it can be good for all, so to speak, and we don't see it. Thank you.
Anything to add?
Ms. Labchuk: I haven't had an opportunity to review the recommendations.
Senator M. Deacon: Part B would be that even though we're learning a lot — and we thank you for that — within a very concerning piece of legislation, I think it would also be diligent for us to ask this: You both said the passing of this bill is quick; we need to get it done; we need to get it in front; we need to get it ready to roll; let's move.
As you went through the bill, were there any sections, should we have six months, that captured your attention and that you think could be better?
Ms. St. Germain: I missed part of that question. Could you repeat it?
Senator M. Deacon: I'll steer it to Ms. Labchuk first. When we're looking at the bill, I know that both your wishes have been well articulated about moving forward on it; let's go. Are there any aspects of the bill that you reviewed where you thought: If we had more time, I think we could make this part of the bill better?
Ms. Labchuk: I can say, no. I think the bill, as it stands, is strong and covers everything that it needs to. I think the House of Commons Justice Committee did great work to make sure it was strengthened. They included the ban on animal ownership post-conviction. They included some cost-recovery mechanisms for agencies that care for animals who have been victims of abuse. They closed any remaining concerns I had regarding the bill.
The only thing I would say is that the bill does what it needs to do quite well, but it leaves out much more. I know that's beyond the scope of what we're studying today, but that's something for next steps.
Ms. St. Germain: I would echo what Camille said. I do think this bill does a very good job with what it set out to do. I think the amendments made at the Justice Committee were incredibly important, and we wholeheartedly support them.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Ravalia: My question is for Ms. Labchuk and it's in the vein of what Senator M. Deacon alluded to, if we were looking at next steps.
There have been recent media highlights about the vulnerability of animals, such as horse races and greyhounds and so on, and the potential cruelty they may be facing. But these are in large industries that are global, that have huge outreach, with significant financial considerations. Do you envisage a time when we may start monitoring those types of activities more closely with respect to the potential cruelty and harm these animals face?
Ms. Labchuk: For a very long time, Canadian industries that use animals have essentially policed themselves. There have not really been federal laws that apply to them or oversight in any meaningful ways. Sometimes at a provincial level there may be varying levels of rules. Sometimes there aren't any at all. Sometimes there are rules of general application that may apply to specific uses of animals. I would say what Canadians are starting to wonder about is why we don't have specific rules for specific industries and why we don't have oversight and proactive inspections of places like farms, laboratories, horse racing facilities that use animals. Most of our lives, and certainly situations where there is an aspect of vulnerability or potential for harm, the government oversees that in some way and tries to prevent that harm from occurring before it does happen. This is what regulation seeks to do. It's been pretty remarkable in Canada, most industries have escaped attempts to regulate them and have self-regulated. Canadians are starting to ask for something more and that is an area the federal government and provinces should step into and look at how we can bring our laws in line with modern social values.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you.
Ms. St. Germain, did you have anything to add with respect to that question?
Ms. St. Germain: No.
Senator Omidvar: My question is to both of you. I hear that you both support the bill and I want to focus on the definition of bestiality and its expanded scope. Lots of Canadians, especially families with children have pets. Those pets are loved by the families, and the pets love their families back. Based on your own experience is there potential for unintended consequences or confusion here?
Ms. Labchuk: You are referring to the definition of bestiality in the bill being so broad as to capture conduct that wasn't intended?
Senator Omidvar: Contact for a sexual purpose with an animal is broad. It's open to interpretation and therefore misinterpretation.
Ms. Labchuk: The term "for a sexual purpose" actually has a specific meaning in Canadian law. It's the same language used in many offences in the Criminal Code. Courts have looked at what the words "for a sexual purpose" mean. What they say is it must be readily apparent to a reasonable observer that there is a sexual or carnal nature to the conduct. Courts have said very clearly that situations in the human sexual assault context, a doctor examining somebody in a way that would otherwise be sexual contact is not covered by our sexual assault laws because it is not sexual contact for the examination. You could say the same thing about a veterinarian examining an animal in a way that might involve touching sexual organs. Obviously, the purpose of that contact is for veterinary care, it's not being done for a sexual purpose. The way that this provision in other sexual offences has been interpreted makes it pretty unlikely that any contact not intended to be captured by this bill will be criminalized.
Ms. St. Germain: I would echo what Camille has said. The "for a sexual purpose" language that is caught in all of the provisions that talk about the criminalization of sexual contact with children is well understood by the courts. There is a lot of case law and interpretations, so I don't have any hesitation that there would be any unintended consequences.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Boyer: I think Senator Deacon covered my final question, and that would be the importance of passing the bill in its current form. Would you suggest any observations at all or just send it like it is?
Ms. Labchuk: One thing we often struggle with in doing animal protection work, especially when looking at how to change the law to do a better job, is a lack of data and information. We don't collect national statistics on animal abuse in a very comprehensive way. Same goes for situations where children and animal abuse coexists. I have spoken extensively about how our federal cruelty laws are inadequate. What has ended up happening is that provinces have tried to pick up the slack when they see these inadequacies by introducing their own provincial animal protection rules. There has been a shift where often agencies will lay charges under provincial rules instead of federal rules, but we don't have enough data to know with certainty whether there are detrimental effects. One potential problem is that sentences are stronger and there are more remedial measures available under the federal criminal cruelty rules. A criminal record would follow someone across the country whereas a record for a provincial offence wouldn't necessarily follow that person. One thing I would urge the committee to emphasize in the report is a need for the collection of national data on animal cruelty offences.
Senator Eaton: This is from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. What would they like to see changed is, to promote cross reporting between animal and child protection agencies. They say this will lead to better detection enabling protective intervention that might not otherwise happen. Any comment from either one of you? Do you think that's a good idea, or not?
Ms. St. Germain: We think it is a good idea. It was one of our recommendations and we do know this is something that is explored in some other jurisdictions. Because we know that there is a crossover between the abuse of animals and the abuse of children and domestic violence. There is a very strong and documented link of violence in the home. If there is violence against the animal there is likely violence against the other people in the home. We know that services that go into homes for various reasons have the opportunity to observe things other than what they are there for. If you are there on an animal complaint and you happen to notice that the children do not look like they are well cared for, reporting to child welfare would be an important thing to do. Because there is a mandatory duty to report in most provinces, that likely would get reported.
What isn't happening, necessarily, is reporting the other way. So if there is a child welfare worker who goes into a home and notices that the dog is not being well cared for, there might not be a report to the animal protection agency. If that hand-in-hand work were going on, there is an opportunity to detect these types of situations of abuse more broadly, not just bestiality. That would be an important thing for the protection of everybody in that home frankly. It would also enhance data collection.
Senator Eaton: Would that be a good observation to amend in the bill?
Ms. St. Germain: I wouldn't say to amend this bill.
Senator Eaton: Observation to attach to the bill.
Ms. St. Germain: We would be supportive of that.
Senator Dasko: This is a follow-up to Senator Eaton's question. So there is a broadening of the definition of bestiality. At the same time there is a great difficulty of detecting the crime. Do you expect the number of charges to go up substantially with the new definition given the difficulty of detecting the crime?
Ms. Labchuk: I am aware of a number of cases where authorities have become aware of potential animal sexual abuse but have not been able to lay charges because of the definition laid out in the D.L.W. case. I would not say that's a substantial number. I think what this bill does is when those allegations come forward it would make it much easier to prosecute but I don't think that the bill will or is capable of doing anything to address the broader question of how we detect these offences in the first place. That is something that likely involves a public education component.
Typically the only way these offences are successfully prosecuted now is if there is video or photographic evidence. That's a real problem. It's helpful that we live in this digital age in a sense because now that evidence is sometimes available. It lays out in stark contrast the difficulty with detecting these offences at all, and it leaves us all wondering exactly how prevalent this conduct is. We don't know the answer to that question and it's difficult to study.
Senator Dasko: There is no prevalence data from what I understand. There is just data on the number of charges that have been made, from Stats Canada. So yes, as was said earlier, even if social workers or others are going into a home and see animals who look like they are in distress, there would be absolutely no evidence to gather on this crime because you can't gather the evidence.
Ms. Labchuk: It's a challenge. Sometimes there are observations about the behaviour of an animal that can be made or external signs.
Senator Dasko: Even in that case, you don't know what the cause of that is.
Ms. Labchuk: All it would allow one to do in most cases is to conduct some further investigation.
Senator Dasko: However that's done. Yes. Ms. St. Germain, do you have any thoughts on this question?
Ms. St. Germain: Yes. I think detection is absolutely one of the most difficult challenges, and I don't think this bill is necessarily going to aid with detection. What it may do, though, and to Ms. Labchuk's point, some charges are not being laid at this point in time because of the definition. We will start to get a better idea of numbers, when charges can be laid, when we have the broader type of activity occurring.
The other thing that I know is happening and happens with increasing frequency in the case law that we review, which is very focused on children, is that when an animal is involved it tends to get subsumed under some other provision of the code. For example, using sexual interference right now is something that will get done in order to capture the animal aspect, but that's not really capturing the animal part separately and it's not recognizing that the animal is a separate victim. It's not adequate where we are right now, and certainly once the definition is broadened we will have an opportunity to get a better understanding of prevalence, which may ultimately help us to aid in detection.
The Deputy Chair: I would like to say thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us today. It's been very helpful. As everyone knows, we are going to go into clause-by-clause right now. So I'll give a few minutes for our witnesses to leave the table and we'll prepare to commence clause-by-clause. Thank you.
Senators, is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-84, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (bestiality and animal fighting)?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: At this point I want to let my colleagues know that we have the officials from Justice Canada, and they are standing by right here in the audience should you have any questions.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Agreed.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Boyer: We have got two good observations. I'm not sure of the process. Can you explain the process?
The Deputy Chair: Normally, if we attach observations they may be prepared in advance, so we need to have them written, a text and translation. We need them in both official languages.
If we want to try to give some language to it here and now, the result would be that the analysts would draft it. We'd have to get it translated. We either could meet again to look at the observations or you could ask the steering committee to review them and give the steering committee permission to sign off on them. But I would caution you — and that's perfectly fine — that we would not be able to report back to the Senate until perhaps next Monday in order to get this done.
Senator Boyer: In my opinion, I don't think we should have any observations. I would rather see this move quickly.
The Deputy Chair: How does everyone feel about that? Agreed.
Senator Eaton: I will go by Senator Boyer as she is the sponsor, but I feel it's a shame we are not going to say anything about cross-reporting between animal and child abuse, because that would be an easy thing to do. But I'll go by your lead.
Senator M. Deacon: Interests of time I understand, but that particular item is very important. When I asked the question about the five recommendations, that's an implementation, so how do we take this legislation and make it work. That one was very important. I want to say it for the record, because we want to move this along quickly, that those recommendations that people have spent time on and are in French and English are very good but we can let that go for the observation, for time.
The Deputy Chair: I think you have options here. Yes, Senator Boyer is the sponsor, and we all have heard very clearly from our witnesses they want to see this legislation pass. They don't want to see a delay. However, we have options here: One, you can speak to this in third reading and make the point in the chamber in third reading. Or we can draft an observation about this one particular issue and in both languages review it and report back to the chamber on Monday night when we meet.
I'm at your disposal here so the committee has to decide. With all due respect to the sponsor, of course, but it's a committee decision.
Senator Munson: The clock is ticking and we could be out of here Wednesday or Thursday of next week. Can the committee put out a press release once this has passed? Could we have unanimous consent on a press release that will state what the observations would state, that we passed the bill unanimously in the committee, with a line or two about what Senator Eaton talked about, without holding up the bill.
Senator Boyer: I also would be more than happy to put it in my third reading speech what we heard here at the committee and make sure that is front and centre.
Senator Kutcher: I appreciate the issue about the time. What I don't understand is in terms of the reality of our deadline, when is the last time you think this should be signed off so that it can go and we can get it finished? The reason I ask is that clinically — and I'm sure Senator Ravalia will agree with me — this is not uncommon. We see this a lot. There is no vehicle to have those cross-references, and, frankly, this would make a huge difference.
The Deputy Chair: To have an observation.
Senator Kutcher: Yes. I don't want to stop the bill, but I don't have an idea myself of when is the drop-dead date that this has to happen.
The Deputy Chair: Of course, the sooner we report it back to the Senate, the sooner we can get to third reading and pass the bill. If we pass it through the committee now, I can report back to the Senate this afternoon. That means that we could go to third reading on Monday evening. Senator Boyer could make her third reading speech — and anyone else who wants to — and potentially the chamber could pass it Monday night.
Say we don't sit tomorrow; then we have to get this done. We can't report back to the chamber until Monday. Senator Boyer speaks Tuesday. We are moving into at-risk territory. I don't know what to say beyond that in terms of the schedule, but I appreciate the issue.
Let me ask our analysts if there is any way we can get this written, translated and to the chamber this afternoon.
Daniel Charbonneau, Clerk of the Committee: We can ask for leave to revert, to have it tabled a little later in the sitting.
Senator Omidvar: We are in camera, right?
The Deputy Chair: No.
Senator Omidvar: We're not in camera.
The Order Paper is very full. My concern, as appropriate and necessary as these observations are, is that in the hierarchy of what is considered to be important, this may well fall below that lens.
Senator Eaton: It's government business.
Senator Omidvar: I know, but within government business, within the hierarchy of what we have in government business, I would be very concerned. One of my learnings in the Senate is that perfection is not in our reach.
The Deputy Chair: That's probably a good lesson.
Senator Munson: I think the key here is the essence of the bill, what this bill will do. An observation, as good as it is, will change nothing, for now.
Senator Eaton: It will change something, because —
Senator Munson: Well, it won't change the essence of the bill. As Jean Chrétien would say, "Jimmy, you've been around here since a long time," and I've been around here a long time since. I worry about what can take place at the end of a session, because I have seen it. No matter how important this is, we have to get back to what this will do for those who work within that environment, which is a difficult environment. Finally, it will give them the tools to do their work. I believe we should get on with it.
Senator Kutcher: I don't want to jeopardize this in any way, shape or form. I was just unclear as to what is the drop-dead point. If Senator Boyer would think about addressing some of these issues in her third reading speech, it seems that would square the circle, so to speak.
The Deputy Chair: The third reading speech is very much on the record.
Senator M. Deacon: Not to put too much of a fly in the ointment, but this third recommendation about cross-reporting is already clearly written, in French and English, should we want to use it:
Promote cross-reporting between animal and child protection agencies. This will lead to better detection of the abuse of both children and animals, enabling protective intervention that might not otherwise happen as both types of abuse tend to be very difficult to uncover.
This is in two languages, and it might take milliseconds or minutes to make it work. It's in the documents received from the Canadian Centre for Child Protection. It's at the end, in the five recommendations, and it's in both languages.
The Deputy Chair: While you were speaking, we had a brief whispered consultation here. In fact, I have it up on my screen. The observation would state:
It is this committee's observation that the Minister of Justice should promote cross-reporting between animal and child protection agencies. This will lead to better detection of the abuse of both children and animals, enabling protective intervention that might not otherwise happen as both types of abuse tend to be very difficult to uncover.
Is that correct? Okay. We have this observation in both languages right in front of us now. We can easily add this to the report, and everything will then be on time for reporting this afternoon.
Senator Eaton: Very good.
The Deputy Chair: Senator Boyer, are you okay with this?
Senator Boyer: Yes, I am, as long as we can keep on track.
The Deputy Chair: It sounds like we are on track. The committee has agreed now to append this observation to the report.
Is it agreed that I report this bill, with observations, to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I think that is the last item on our agenda. In fact, this is likely our last meeting, senators. It has been quite a session.
In closing, I'd like to say thank you to everyone for your collegiality and for your insightful and hard work on this committee. It's been a very interesting time, with many important pieces of legislation. Over the last four years, some of the legislation has been rather challenging. I think specifically of Bill C-45, the cannabis bill; Bill S-5, the Tobacco and the Non-smokers' Health Act; and Bill C-81, which we recently did, the accessibility act. Perhaps these are the most historic of the 28 government and private members' bills that we studied during this session.
Of course, I can't forget the studies of this committee, which have always been, and continue to be, cutting edge, such as our obesity study, the dementia study, the robotic and artificial intelligence, the health care study — just a few examples.
On behalf of our members, I would like to thank our chair, who could not be with us today, and her staff, for their leadership. Personally, I would like to say that it has been a true pleasure to work with Senator Petitclerc, always in the most cooperative spirit.
I would also like to thank Senator Munson, the third member of our steering committee, who has also given us the benefit of his wisdom and experience. Thank you very much, senator.
I would also sincerely like to thank our clerks, past and present — now Dan Charbonneau — for all you do to keep us organized as a committee.
Thanks to the many analysts — two of whom are sitting with us today, but we have had many — who have seen us through the broad range of subject matter we have covered as a committee, and all the others behind the scenes, including the administrative assistants, the stenographers, the translators and the pages, for all their hard work in supporting the committee.
I think it's important to make special mention of those support staff who worked very hard to make our hearings on Bill C-81 accessible. That was a big deal and it was very historic.
On a personal note, I would like to say a special thanks to our staff, those senators on the steering committee, and to my own staff, Sylvie and Valerie, who see us through the trials and tribulations on a daily basis. Our success as a committee would not have been possible without all of you.
I wish you a wonderful, restful summer, and I guess we'll all be seeing each other after the election. Thank you very much.
Senator Munson: I think it's appropriate to thank you very much because, in my 16 years here, this has been the most collaborative committee I have ever been on. We worked towards compromise and consensus on everything.
We have done something, Senator Seidman, that is unheard of in the Parliament on the accessible Canada act, which is a historic piece of legislation. It's unheard of that all of our amendments were accepted by the government. I would like to go back and look at the history to see if all of a committee's amendments were approved by the Government of Canada.
We really moved a long way, and I personally want to thank you. I think I am the oldest here, and I thank you on behalf of the younger senators, like Senator Oh and others. I'm serious about that. He still has five years here.
You've been wonderful to work with as well. Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
(The committee adjourned.)


text:
Virtual Meeanjin
Virtual Meeanjin placed users in the heart of the Brisbane CBD. This tasked users to learn and survive as the local people of Meeanjin had in the past prior to colonisation. The users were tasked with building a fire for the people of the village to provide warmth as the sun set. They then learnt the traditional methods of surviving sourcing from the local vegetation to craft bush food and medicine as well as hunting implements. By the end of the experience the user becomes well equipped to hunt local animals to provide a good source of food as well as foraging through the local creek beds and sourcing Warrigal Greens. The team enjoyed crafting an intricate experience for their home town city, and being able to see how the areas that they grew up around looked 250 years ago.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
You cannot delegate your personal safety or preparedness. YOU are responsible. Accept The Challenge to prepare yourself - and your loved ones - for any threat or emergency that may come your way.
Audentes fortuna juvat
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Shotguns - Shooting Slugs
The techniques used for shooting slugs are slightly different that when shooting birdshot. The biggest difference is that when shooting slugs, if you don't employ a very steady stance, you pay dearly. Well, your shoulder pays dearly.
With birdshot, if the butt of the rifle isn't securly placed against the shoulder, you will get a little bit of "slap" - the butt slamming into your shoulder. With slugs (or with most buck shot), if the butt of the shotgun is not firmly against the shoulder before you pull the trigger, you have a real chance of hurting yourself.
The recoil is impressive, to say the least!
I teach a stance that has the student facing the target with their feet slightly wider than shoulder-width apart. The right foot (assuming a right-handed shooter) comes back slightly, and the left foot comes forward slightly. You want a slight bend to the knees and a slight forward-leaning stance.
The butt of the shotgun is placed firmly against the shoulder, and the left hand is up on the forestock slightly pushing forwards. All of this - the knees, the leaning forward, tight against the shoulder and the slight forward pressure on the forestock - help to absorb a good deal of the recoil and provide better control of the gun. And save your shoulder lots of pain!
The biggest issue is getting my students to shoot a second shot! Most have come from my pistol classes, and the recoil of a handgun - even something large - is a world apart from a shotgun blast.
I take them through a number of drills to help to alleviate the outright fear many feel after simply hearing a shotgun blast. Most are able to understand the concepts and truly appreciate how proper technique can make shooting slugs a part of their self-defense (and hunting) skills.
Accept The Challenge
As with all firearms, before you fire a new type of gun, get training first. The safety features and operations vary significantly between types of guns - handguns, rifles or shotguns.
Be safe by getting trained.
Copyright 2009 Bison Risk Management Associates. All rights reserved. You are encouraged to repost this information so long as it is credited to Bison Risk Management Associates. www.BisonRMA.com
7 comments:
I've got a few cases of slugs in my storage but hardly ever fire one. A shotgun loaded with full power slugs will get your attention if you aren't holding it correctly, as you point out.
- January 29, 2010 at 12:12 PM
- Chief Instructor said...
It was pretty funny. I told him the exact slugs to buy - a low-recoil slug. Even sent him a picture of the box.
He bought the full load slugs. I had brought a box of low recoils and we started with those. He shot one of the regular ones, and called it quits!
- January 29, 2010 at 12:42 PM
- GunRights4US said...
Hello Chief. Thanks for the invite.
Slugs by themselves have never been overmuch to shoot for me. But recently I very foolishly pulled both triggers simultaneously on a double-barrel loaded with double ought buck.
The experience very pointedly taught me I had become complacent! Ouch.
- January 30, 2010 at 5:53 AM
- GunRights4US said...
Hello Mr Hermit. Long time no see.
- January 30, 2010 at 5:54 AM
- Chief Instructor said...
Good to hear from you again, Guns. For some reason, I've never fired slugs from anything other than a pump shotgun. If I ever put some through a double trigger shotgun, I'll keep your experience in mind!
- January 30, 2010 at 8:35 AM
- Ryan said...
With slugs I think it is important to make sure you get the butt of the gun tight into the 'sweet spot' between (and slightly lower than) the collar bone and the ball of the shoulder. One of my shotguns came stock with a thick rubber pad on it which helps.
This is where having some meat on your bones helps.
- January 30, 2010 at 1:22 PM
- Chief Instructor said...
TOR, over a year ago, I bought a butt extender at the Reno gun show, but have yet to install it. It is a bit more cushy than the standard butt end. I need to get that installed!
- January 30, 2010 at 8:42 PM


text:
As the father of two tech-nerd daughters and husband of someone who writes Java code for a living, I've been in favour of the idea of getting more women into IT. My assumption was that it would be A Good Thing. Until recently I hadn't questioned that assumption. Now I am doing so.
Women are under-represented in IT, no question about it. They always have been. Female programmers like my wife are notable for their rarity. But women are also under-represented in the taxi-driving and refuse-collection industries. By contrast, women far outnumber men in the public sector.
Should we be encouraging more men to be nurses, primary school teachers and social workers? More women to be taxi drivers? Perhaps we should, but why? What are the underlying assumptions?
One assumption is that IT is a good career choice: lucrative, rewarding, stimulating. It can be those things, but often it isn't. Just look at IDG Connect's report into bullying in IT. Working in this industry can be a stressful, tiring, boring and depressing experience.
I wouldn't go back to coding for money if you paid me. It's just not worth the pain. It's a job for young people, those who haven't yet discovered how the corporate world works and where they fit into it. A friend's son just left Google after three years as a programmer, because he wants a life and is feeling burnt out. He's 27, and far from being the only one. Almost everybody I know who works in IT these days is permanently overworked and stressed.
Another underlying assumption in the 'women in IT' debate is that girls don't get involved with computing because they see it as being above them. Having spoken to a number of teachers and parents, it seems that in at least some cases the opposite is true: they don't do it because they feel it's beneath them. I wonder if those girls might be right.
I was there when home computers first appeared. I was 10 years old. There were no prejudices about who could or couldn't use them, because there was no precedent. Many boys – including me – were instantly hooked. We spent weeks of our lives trying to write simple, blocky computer games, or get animated balls to bounce around the screen. Many girls – including my sister – glanced at those primitive counting machines and said the equivalent of, "Meh, come back and show me when it can run Minecraft or The Sims."
In hindsight the girls' evaluation was the more sensible. How much of my life did I waste writing sprite collision detection routines on a BBC Micro? How many days, weeks, months were frittered away optimising config.sys and autoexec.bat files to get memory-hungry PC games to work?
And I'm still at it. I've just spent days getting a modern Linux distro to run well on a 1995 Pentium PC. Why? Surely there are better uses of my finite time on this planet. But I'm like a dog chasing a thrown stick. When it comes to computers I just have to experiment, fiddle, tweak, program and problem-solve.
I'm not alone in that. Most of my male friends have a similar… well, I might once have called it a drive, but perhaps it's more of an affliction. Yet most women and girls seem far more pragmatic. They see these machines for what they really are – tools, a means to an end.
I'm also aware that the current focus on getting girls into IT can have a detrimental effect on boys' motivation and self-belief. They can't fail to notice the demands for more female programmers. Not more skilled programmers, just more female ones. I don't have any sons, but I don't feel that my daughters should have preferential treatment over boys just because of their gender. As well as being unfair, that would affect their belief in their own abilities: how much of their success would truly be their own, rather than the result of an uneven playing field?
The only differentiator should be ability. Yet, as I've discovered from teaching coding to children, there doesn't seem to be a gender difference in programming ability.
So why aren't there more women in IT? Is there a concerted effort on the part of men to keep them out? I don't think that idea withstands scrutiny, but I could be wrong. My wife hasn't experienced misogyny in her IT career. If anything the opposite is true. The only programmers who wouldn't welcome a more gender-balanced working environment are those who feel insecure because they aren't very good at their jobs.
Which leaves the possibility that large numbers of women have looked at IT as a career and thought, "You must be bloody joking!"
That might be the correct rational response, for both women and men. I've always assumed that IT was a sensible career choice because it's been good for me. It might not be so great for others, though. In any case, the situation is very different for those starting out today compared to 30 years ago.
My daughters might decide to work in IT when they grow up, or they might not. But it will be their choice. They won't be put off by gender perceptions or prejudice. And they won't be pushed into it by well-meaning adults who think that women must follow a certain path just because it happened to work out well for their own careers. Or, even worse, to make the male/female numbers balance.
Instead of saying "We must get more women into IT," a better rallying cry would be "Anyone, regardless of gender, should be able to pursue the career of their choice without prejudice." You want to be a nurse? Great. A programmer? Wonderful. Your reproductive organs should be no impediment to any career.
That's a much harder goal to achieve, I know. It's also a more honest, fair and equitable one. And if you really want more women in IT, the solution is simple. Just make IT a nicer industry to work in – for everyone.


text:
I'd had a couple of near misses with Kasbah, a little takeaway shop bridging Indian and Italian cuisines on Marchmont Road, recently but had timed things just a little incorrectly.
Despite my best endeavours to continue that run, I managed to arrive about ten minutes before they closed this time so had a chance to give their food a go.
As I say, their menu is part Indian, with a broad range of curries and other classics, next to a pizza selection. My eye was caught by a Kiev pizza, which brought together garlic butter, chicken and mushrooms.
The friendly counter chaps were soon about the task of freshly preparing things. After the requisite cooking time, my item was with me.
The chicken had a bright yellow tikka hue to it, but despite being visually arresting was rather dry and disappointing.
Otherwise, this was a pretty good pizza with a lightly crisp base. It made for good eating.
So overall, I'm not sure I saw Kasbah to best advantage but it still looks to be a decently good takeaway option. I'll maybe give one of their curries a go on a future visit as perhaps that's where their real strength lies.
Blythe scores Kasbah
3/5 for food
3/5 for presentation
3.5/5 for service
3/5 for setting
giving an overall 12.5/20
I ate: Kiev pizza
I wore: spotless linen
Total bill: £7.40
Address: 21 Marchmont Road, Marchmont, Edinburgh EH9 1HZ


text:
Can not edit or delete calendar event
Many years ago I created a repeating calendar event under an old logon that no longer exists from a discontinued e-mail address. Now that I have a new logon, I can not edit or delete that old calendar event. I get the following message: "Edit" Permissions Not Available. How can I delete the old calendar event from the GCMA Group?
15 comments
Damon Campagna commented
Yep, me too.
Don Pottenger commented
I'm the group owner and can't edit, delete or do much of anything with events in our calendar. Just another case in a long line of broken calendar issues that has been going on now for years.
In fact, today I could not even get to my group at all. it disappeared entirely. Yahoo, you really need to apply some resources to the group problems that have been mostly occurred since you went to the new neo UI.
Please fix the EDIT EVENTS problem on Yahoo groups calendar. I cannot edit an event I did not post - thanks
It looks like this problem has existed for SOME for quite a long time. Perhaps Yahoo has to fix a group individually? It is now at least three months, maybe more, but less than six, since I have been able to delete an event from the calendar. We are now sending out birthday reminders for DEAD people. Could someone PLEASE FIX THIS! I have spent almost all my votes on this problem, and it's still ranked 90th! PLEASE! This is EMBARRASSING! I NEED to be able to DELETE or even edit, events on my group calendar! I am the OWNER, and I set up the calendar originally, and am the only one who enters into it.
Jacque E. commented
I think that is ****. My late grandmother created all the events and I took it over, so now, becauseven Yahoo doesn't want to further develop their calendar I have to readd every event.
Members or Moderators cannot edit Calendar events that they did not create
Jacque E. commented
I am a group owner and have the same problem. My events no longer send reminders and the only way to fix it was to remove the events and readd them but I get this error so I cannot do it. I need this fixed ASAP.
Dave R commented
I am group owner and I am getting the same problem with the error message about access being processed - check back later. Please fix!
Theresa Normandin commented
Same problem. It has been over a year. I want to go into Events and delete an annual post but the system keeps telling me "Your access to this calendar is being processed. Please check back later." Please fix this!
Matthew Tiscareno commented
Same problem here. I can neither delete these spurious repeating calendar items, nor can I prevent them from spamming my group. Does anyone from Yahoo read this?
K commented
Same problem here! Our events calendar includes individual, one-shot events. It also includes a calendar of significant event dates in the history of science and astronautics, which are set to repeat annually. Often, as new data come to light, these events NEED TO BE EDITED.
I can only edit/delete individual, one-shot events. Every time I try to edit or delete an old, inaccurate annual event I get , "OOPS! Sorry something has gone wrong. Edit permissions are not available."
I am the owner / moderator. This problem has existed for at least 6 months, probably longer. It's rather embarassing to have reminders going out to our members celebrating the birthdays of significant people who are no longer alive! I'm the laughing stock some of our members like to pick on.
It seems that once I set an event to repeat regularly, it becomes set in stone and I am completely locked out of it. Pleeeeeeeeeeease fix this.
Ditto. Cannot edit calendar events I posted many years ago. What's the fix?
Amy Griggs commented
Did anyone get an answer to this problem? I have the same issue.
Bipin Bakshi commented
For a new group the link is broken. I want to set Birthday Reminders in a group where I am the owner. The link is not operating. For Another group it works well
Chris commented
I too have this problem... Although I'm the group 'owner' I don't appear to have permission to edit past events? How do I get this fixed as the calendar continues to send reminders for events that aren't actually happening?


text:
Microsoft Windows 10 Helpdesk Live Chat Support
Microsoft offers support to all customers using its products – and this takes different forms.
Microsoft Customer Service and Support is available to help you with questions about Microsoft products and services. In this case, a Microsoft representative will help you locate the appropriate resource or team to answer questions.
This is meant to be used if you have general customer service questions
Microsoft Technical Support will provide support options and locate the appropriate support team to resolve technical support issues, which you may be facing. This may include self-help support or assisted support.
To begin with you can visit this page, mention your country and select the product for which you wish to receive support.
Windows 10 users can use the Contact Support app.
Business, IT, & developer
Small & medium businesses, enterprises & partners, IT professionals, and developers.
Microsoft store sales & support
Get help with choosing a Microsoft product, or ask about a previous purchase from the Windows online or physical store.
Disability Answer Desk
Support for people with disabilities.


text:
The above makes no sense without the sound up.
[Tweets from Twitter as if you couldn't tell, and yes I cheated. Been busy in meatworld.]
Classic pic.twitter.com/iQcgveP6p8
— The World Of Funny (@TheWorldOfFunny) October 3, 2018
The above makes no sense without the sound up.
Ducks are evolving 👀😂 pic.twitter.com/y2ufwnvqHS
— Animal Bible (@AN1MALBIBLE) October 2, 2018
Not your typical shark attack. pic.twitter.com/aEnAU9QCr5
— When Animals Attack (@Animalsandfools) September 28, 2018
[Tweets from Twitter as if you couldn't tell, and yes I cheated. Been busy in meatworld.]
Tags:.gif animation, Chewbacca, Chewy, ducks, poop, shark, star wars, Traffic, Tweets, Wookie, WTF
Posted in Cool, Ducks & Geese, GIF animations, Humor, Odd, The .Gif Friday Post | Leave a Comment »
Great Grampa Strutts and his sons were painters. I tried it once, but didn't have the proper equipment.
"Unsatisfying" by Parallel Studio.
PPAP is mildly disturbing.
[h/t Bunkessa.]
JJ Grey & Mofro cranked some swamp soul at the Peoria Blues Fest on 31 August 2013. Lotta recognizable influences, especially Joe Cocker.
Have a great weekend folks.
Tags:blues, Chewbacca, JJ Grey, Mofro, Music, Parallel Studio, PPAP, Saturday Matinee, Sign Painters, star wars, unsatisfying, video, WIN, WTF
Posted in Bizarre, Cool, Humor, Music, Odd, Retro, Saturday Matinee, Videos | Leave a Comment »


text:
Herds are guilds in Legends of Equestria that players may create or join. They can range from roleplaying groups to exploration teams. The purpose of creating herd profiles on the wiki is to allow players to quickly look up a herd without going through the forums. Additionally, Wikia formatting tools may allow such pages to look better as compared to forum threads. Herd profiles should have a leader, or at least a group of representatives. Leaders or representatives should indicate both their in-game name, as well as their forum name, as Legends of Equestria allows for multiple characters with the same name. Remember that for a herd profile to be allowed on the wiki, that herd must be active, either on the forums, or in the game.
DO NOT create your herd profile as an independent page on the wiki.
Remember to add
[[Category:Herd profiles]] at the end of your page!
{{Recruiting}} template over here on how to add it to your page!
Roleplaying on the wiki is strictly not allowed. Please keep them to the Roleplaying board on the Legends of Equestria forums, or some other communication channel. The herd discussion board can be found here.
What to add to herd profilesEdit
Herd-related information can be added to herd profiles. Adding images is recommended to allow the page to look more vibrant, while banners can help with displaying the herd's identity. Herd adventure logs can also help potential recruits to find out what the herd does. Do learn to use Source mode while editing, as Visual mode may lead to some quirks in the formatting. For a quick course on how to make full use of the wiki editor using Source mode, see here.
Important information to addEdit
- Herd leader / representative(s)
- Herd description
- Members in the herd
- Link to forums
Optional informationEdit
- Adventure logs (Must involve at least 3 or more ponies!)
- Frequent hangouts
- Member ranks
- Short description of members
- Herd alliances / competitors


text:
Intro Keyword Spy Free
SpyFu is one of the feature rich tools, but has the Least appealing interface on the market. SpyFu offers SEO and PPC spy tool options . Keyword Spy Free
Click here to register to Spyfu now!
Keyword User and Search Experience
The SpyFu dashboard is laid out using a navigation bar across the top with tabs for SEO Research, PPC Research, Keyword Research, Backlinks, the List Builder, Tracking, and Reports. There's a lot SpyFu can do across the spectrum of SEO tooling, but for this review we are focusing on its ad hoc keyword lookup capacities. When a company is looking to identifying the best possible search engine results pages (SERP) to aim with an optimization strategy, keyword-driven investigation is your legwork to get pages to rank higher. Recommendations and direction capacities are built in during SpyFu, but I started in the Keyword Research tab.
When I used exactly the same set of five Keywords to see how outcomes differed between each of my opponents. Were electronic advertising, pcmag, internet shopping, IT consultant, and small business accounting. I chose this combination to simulate real world terms that companies might hunt for (such as publishers such as PCMag) and to find related search results and vulnerable competition sites.
After conducting searches I discovered that SpyFu produces and structures its key word benefits and metrics somewhat differently than Moz Guru, KWFinder, or Ahrefs$82.00 at Ahrefs. Rather than populating a table of related keywords with Page Authority (PA) and Domain Name Authority (DA) metrics together with stats on cost per click (CPC) and keyword difficulty, SpyFu brings a far more obvious correlation with how much money a keyword is worth. After searching"digital advertising," for instance, a separate navigation bar appeared across the top of their results page further breaking down the search results. You can then drill down to key word summary, related keywords, advertiser history, ranking history, traffic, key word grouping, and SERP analysis. That's only for a single key word question, revealing SpyFu will arguably the most granular deep-dive investigation into keyword data of the tools I analyzed.
Atop the primary results, SpyFu gave me not CPC for the Key word, however a daily and yearly cost breakdown in addition to the number of unique advertisers had appeared on the keyword in the past year. I got exactly the same level of price breakdown once I clicked on the Related Keywords tab, which also allowed me to narrow results using a left-hand filter menu to a specific cost per day, daily search volume, difficulty rating, and more.
In the bottom of the key word results was that the SERP analysis. This broke down every URL from the search results page, even however KWFinder and Moz Pro both offer a more comprehensive breakdown in this respect. SpyFu focuses. Results like the Advertiser History graph, a lengthy list and complex diagram of the ads appearing on this search page as time passes, was somewhat too in the weeds for me as a newcomer SEO instrument user. But for advertisers and digital marketers, SpyFu is a gold mine. Keyword Spy Free
SpyFu Kombat
With SpyFu Kombat you can look at overlapping and site key words For up to 3 sites. For the PPC version you can also see a chart which goes back over a span of a few years showing that the general amount of keywords being bid on by all 3 sites. You may also rollover the graph to see keywords specific to only 2 of the sites if you are feeling the 3rd website may not be doing as great a job (or vice versa) as two of the other sites. It will also show you that the PPC budgets of those sites in addition to the amount of organic keywords rank in the top 50 results for said keyword.
When you click an area of the circle chart it will show you the Key words in whatever bucket you click, towards the right of this chart. It is possible to see and download those keywords for your own use. As you can see I am on the advertisements tab but the choices are comparable once you click the organic tab (on the top box, the organic one on the bottom shows you complete organic keywords).
Switching between the organic tab and the ppc tab (also as the Total # of organic search phrases + PPC advertisement budget must also give you a good notion of which of the larger sites are more to the PPC or SEO side of things which can be a good barometer to check in if you happen to be focusing on one place on the other hand.
SpyFu Classic
SpyFu Classic is the"flagship" segment in order to speak. This is Where you input one domain on the home page and are presented with a TON of data such as:
– Daily AdWords PPC Budget
– Links through to SpyFu Kombat
– Typical Ranking of Ads vs # of Clients
– Estimated Value of Organic Traffic (estimated traffic with a factor of CPC factored in)
– Paid Traffic In comparison with Organic Traffic Quotes
– Subdomains (helpful for looking at how a website might break out parts of the main domain, maybe a good spot to look for niche keywords???)
– Top Ten Paid Key Word w/ Keyword Advertisement Background (links through to full Keyword Advertisement History instrument )
– Complete Paid Keywords
– Total Organic Keywords
– PPC Competitors (using a link to overlapping keywords)
– Organic Competitors (using a link to overlapping key words )
– Category
The data can be useful, as you can see the:
– Estimated PPC, Clicks, Cost Daily, Total Advertisers. . .all with trend information
– Top Ten Domains Advertising on the Keyword, together with Domain Name Ad History
– Added Keywords Purchased By Relevant Domains
– PPC Ad Copy Using a URL to Keyword Advertisement History
– Top Ten Organic Results with Title, Meta Description
– Related Terms
– Related Concepts (based on semantic relationships)
– Categories Keyword Spy Free
Click here to subscribe to Spyfu!
Keyword Management and Reviews
Keyword management is baked into SpyFu throughout the platform. Within all its three main research tabs–SEO, PPC, and Keyword–there are choices from the drop-down menus for SEO and PPC-specific keywords, and Keyword Groups. The Keyword Groups attributes in each tab are fairly similar, populating a table with monthly search volume, CPC, problem score, and monthly price. These are SpyFu's four chief metrics where key word research is worried. On the left of this table are either the keyword you've researched and grouped yourself, or high keyword group suggestions from SpyFu. At the top right of the desk you can subsequently add selected key words to lists, or export your selected keyword within an Microsoft Excel file, CSV, or PDF. This basic keyword category performance is similar to SEMrush$99.95 in SEMrush and executed better in Moz Pro and KWFinder.
Where SpyFu's key word management abilities really stand Out are at its List Builder and Tracking tabs. Additionally, this is where SpyFu creates its deep link between SEO and client relationship management (CRM). In the List Builder tab, there's a Top Lists segment with targeted lists of domain names and key words like"Domains That Pay the Most On AdWords," keywords with the maximum CPC. There's also a list of the most expensive keywords, which you can then filter by state, industry, or a specific web-based technologies: Ad buying platform, affiliate marketing, email marketing, and online shopping cart are some of the options.
Alongside Top Lists, there's a dedicated Company Leads tab. This essentially acts the exact same manner as a search: You enter key words and businesses, a location, and refine results using filters such as AdWords budget and SEO clicks. The research then returns a list of URL leads with that website's monthly advertising budget and accessible contact information that may subsequently be exported into your CRM or direct management system. I'd love to view SpyFu go a step further with this and incorporate its own SEO lead lists straight using a stage like Salesforce$75.00 at salesforce.com, but this tool is already ahead of the curve. SEMrush has a beta lead generation instrument, but that's the closest any other optimization product that I tested comes to what SpyFu offers.
But, SpyFu incorporated AdWords Templates as Part of a Google AdWords campaign. The templates consist of prewritten advertisements for key word groups in hundreds of industries. Users may download the templates in the SpyFu website and upload to a AdWords account.
The system also includes deeper SEO campaign management With its My SpyFu Project Manager tool. SpyFu designed this as a project management(PM) feature inside the SEO platform for tackling integrated keyword research and rank tracking in a campaign. My SpyFu is just available in paid programs (not the free trial), but it allows you to install multiple jobs tracking grouped key words plotted against SEO rank, traffic worth, ROI, and numerous other metrics. All you have to do is open the My SpyFu menu and then add a new job. It's the only and best case in this roundup of SEO-focused PM.
There is also Keywords you've identified and begin monitoring that reports back with domain positions and keyword position changes. Utilizing the webpage, I was also able to set up custom SEO reports in a few simple steps: Enter a domain name then choose whether or not to run a document on SpyFu's suggested custom keywords or domain keywords. I entered my five custom keywords in a field, picked up to five competitors' URLs, then was given the option to run a one-off report or a report.
That sort of analysis that is competitive is another area in which SpyFu stands outside, since it also includes a tool called"Kombat" that's available in the SEO and PPC Research tabs. In Kombat, I typed in the domain of PCMag along with the tool immediately built an interactive data visualization which revealed where the top keywords of PCMag overlapped with our competitors. There's also what SpyFu calls a"key word world," listing CPC, CTR, monthly price, and monthly clicks for core keywords and recommended keywords. This research breakdown is another feature which helps unearth ways for one to gain an SEO advantage. Keyword Spy Free
Along with the SEO performance of its Solution, SpyFu has introduced a study tool called Nacho Analytics, which offers access to different sites' web analytics. Through this platform, you can see time-of-day traffic, sections, and behavior.
Keyword Advertisement History
You will be shown by Advertisement Background, through colour coded bars, how frequently the Key words appeared in a domain's PPC campaign alongside any modifications in the ad copy (all of which can be exported into excel). It extends back to 2006 through the Bonus History Button and shows a year's worth of data.
So it is fairly straightforward, and that's what I like about SpyFu Tools. No more over-reliance on"in-house metrics" it's just"here's the ad history of the keyword", plain and simple. If you see a key word being promoted on by a PPC advertiser that is fantastic consistent then it's possible to look to employ that ad copy technique to a niche market of that bigger keyword. If I were advertisements for"resorts in Oklahoma" I would pay attention to what ad copy was successful, as time passes, for that main/core keyword"hotels".
Domain Ad History
Except it shows the, domain Ad History is similar to Keyword Ad History Keyword history of a particular domainname.
This tool is useful in Taking a Look at keywords that have been effective for Your competitors (or larger players in your market ) and which ones that they tried and abandoned (which could be ones for you to avoid from the gate). All this presumes the domain you're currently exploring is capable PPC advertiser.
Keyword Smart Search
The Keyword Smart Search instrument in SpyFu uses semantic word connections, Publicly available keyword data, and PPC campaign information to return a list of keywords related to the keyword(s) (up to 10) you enter. As you can see, you could also filter by CPC, look volume, and you might also exclude key words.
For me personally, I prefer to use the Organic key words found as well as the PPC keywords In either SpyFu Classic or SpyFu Kombat. I love to use different tools for pure keyword research (Google tools, Microsoft Ad Center Intelligence, and Wordtracker). Mostly, I feel SpyFu is at its best when used as a competitive search instrument versus a research tool. Keyword Spy Free
Pricing and Plans
As I mentioned, SpyFu's Basic plan begins at $33 per Month when billed annually (roughly $39 per month ). Though, unlike other tools in this SEO tool inspection roundup, such as Moz Pro and KWFinder$12.00 at KWFinder, SpyFu doesn't cost by search results. All plans come with an infinite number of domain, key word collection, backlink, and comparison search results along with data export. The functionality you get with SpyFu for the cost is a significant element in the reason we gave it an Editors' Choice, along with the search volumes make the instrument even more attractive for research that is keyword that is ad hoc.
That is not to say SpyFu doesn't cap anything. The Basic Plan gives you a capacity of 250 sales leads and domain contacts, along with 5,000 weekly tracked keyword rankings, together with 10 domain reports and 10 pay-per-click (PPC) reports through SpyFu's AdWords Advisor tool. The $78-per-month expert plan (also $58 per month when billed yearly ) lumps leads and contacts to 500 and per week tracked keyword positions to 15,000, along with custom-branded reports and access to SpyFu's application programming interface (API).
Finally, SpyFu has added a $199 per month Team plan (billed yearly, or $299 month-to-month) using 2,000 sales leads and domain contacts, 40,000 weekly tracked keyword rankings, and five user logins. SpyFu also comprises a 30-day money-back warranty. The company has slashed its pricing.
I find their tools pretty helpful for research that is competitive. I don't use Their own Keyword Smart Search explained above but the number of information which They give (in a simple fashion) in the price points that they give is very A nice combination. SpyFu makes its way Each project. Keyword Spy Free
Click here today to subscribe to Spyfu!


text:
PDF Revision Date 6/11/2015 Version 1.2 Texas Section 50(a)(6. – Texas Section 50(a)(6) refinance eligibility matrix and Summary Guidelines The property is not located within municipal boundaries or its extraterritorial jurisdiction, or if the property is located in one of those types of areas: It is not served by police protection or paid or volunteer fire protection provided by the municipality or
PDF Revision Date 11/21/2017 Version 2.0 Texas Section 50(a)(6. – Revision Date 11/21/2017 Version 2.0 Most recent updates in red font Texas Section 50(a)(6) Refinance Eligibility Matrix and Summary Guidelines Information and Disclaimers Regarding Use of this Document
How Long Do Hard Inquiries Stay On Your Report How Long Do Credit Inquiries Stay on Your Credit Report? – Hard inquiries will stay on your credit report for 2 years from the date of the inquiry. Now you can take certain steps to dispute a "hard" inquiry but remember inquiries are the least important items to remove from a credit report compared to other items such as missed payments, collections and charge offs.
Dennis Stabile – Greater Detroit Area | Professional. – Authorized to handle the more complex loans with loan amounts up to $750,000 and all self-employment analysis.. Texas 50A6 loans and manual underwriting products. Analyzed supporting loan.
Basic Manual of Title Insurance, Section IV (continued) – When a Loan Policy of Title Insurance is to be issued insuring the lien securing a reverse mortgage loan made pursuant to Subsection (a)(7) of Section 50, Article XVI, Texas Constitution, the Company shall attach to the Loan Policy of Title Insurance the Texas Reverse Mortgage Endorsement .
Texas Cashout Refinance Changes 2018 | Your Mortgage Guy For Life – Texas Home Equity Changes Texas has made some major changes to the a(6) Texas Cashout Refinance, aka Texas Home equity.. texas cashout refinance Changes 2018. By Brad Lynch on December 7, 2017 9 Comments. Eliminating the ban on home equity loans on homesteads with agricultural exemptions.
Pink Floyd Archives-U.S. CD Discography – Compact Disc Information. Album Release Order: Because compact discs weren't commercially issued until the mid-1980s, the order in which Pink Floyd albums were released on CDs varied considerably from their original release order. The very first Pink Floyd compact discs to be released in the United States were Wish You Were Here in June 1983, The Final Cut in August 1983, Dark Side of the Moon.
Texas may finally change home equity lending laws | 2017-11. – Home Texas may finally change home equity lending laws.. Texas may finally change home equity lending laws. 3% fee cap limits their ability to originate low loan amount home equity loans.
How Long Do Inquiries Stay On Credit Report Valterra also suggests changing your due date on your credit card to the last day of the month. That way, as long as you pay your bill in. there'd be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and.
Rates Modestly Better, The Week Ahead. – Aggressive lenders continue to offer added incentives to borrowers with pristine loan files. pristine loan files generally implies low loan to values and high FICO scores. After added incentives some.
6/26/2012 · do a spouse need to be on the deed when buying a house? Find answers to this and many other questions on Trulia Voices, a community for you to find and. Get answers, and share your insights and experience.


text:
Press Release
U.S. Department of Commerce Invests Nearly $1.2 Million for Industrial Park Expansion in Texas
Contact: EDA Public Affairs Department, (202) 482-4085
February 16, 2017
WASHINGTON – The U.S. Department of Commerce's Economic Development Administration (EDA) is awarding a $1.2 million grant to the Mexia Economic Development Corporation (MEDC) of Limestone County, Texas, to make critical roadway infrastructure improvements needed to boost capacity at the Mexia Industrial Park and open additional land to development. According to grantee estimates, the project will help to retain more than 100 jobs.
"The Economic Development Administration works with communities across the nation to improve their infrastructure in support of business development," said Deputy Assistant Secretary for Regional Affairs Tom Guevara. "This EDA investment will allow established businesses – including manufacturers - to grow and will help attract new businesses to the region."
The project will resurface and upgrade the existing Industrial Blvd. and Stanton Rd. in Mexia Industrial Park to provide a roadway adequate for the semi-tractor trailer traffic. This project will also build a new road to provide access to approximately 600 acres of MEDC owned property adjacent to the industrial park to allow expansion into this area for industrial development.
About the U.S. Economic Development Administration (www.eda.gov)
The mission of the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) is to lead the federal economic development agenda by promoting competitiveness and preparing the nation's regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy. An agency within the U.S. Department of Commerce, EDA makes investments in economically distressed communities in order to create jobs for U.S. workers, promote American innovation, and accelerate long-term sustainable economic growth.


text:
Sleek details make all the difference! Our All Capital Name Necklace in Sterling Silver offers a bold take on a classic, thanks to an all caps font that gives your finished piece a lively appearance. Truly stunning from every angle, this necklace is a great fit for your personality. This boldly styled necklace is made with Sterling Silver. It features:
You're not one to whisper. Instead, you prefer to make confident statements – and this necklace shows just how much strength of character you have! The sterling silver complements your everyday look, so this necklace easily goes everywhere you do.
This fantastic necklace is also available in 18K Gold Plating. For additional options, be sure to visit our collection, where you'll find lots of other necklaces with a name on it – perfect for wearing and sharing with the ones you love!


text:
Exciting news: our brand new website will be arriving very soon. To be the first to hear about it, sign up here.
Where in the world are you?
It's far nicer (and easier) when things are in your own language.Right now, we speak a few, but we're learning more all the time…
Step inside our Neptune Home store in Hare Hatch, nestled between Maidenhead and Reading, and you'll be immersed in everything we create; beautifully crafted furniture, kitchens, upholstery and all the little things that help to give a home soul. An historic gate lodge with over 6,500 sq. ft. across 2 levels, 3 design offices, an expansive garden and a stunning oak frame barn, Reading showcases the very best of Neptune. The RoleOur Home Specialists are so much more than sales assistants; they really are specialists in everything they do, from the outstanding service they provide our customers to their in-depth product knowledge. If you adore great design within home interiors, you'll love working for Neptune. Each store is unique from the ground up, designed with care and attention to protect and enhance their historical bones. They are home to some of the most inspiring and beautiful furniture, kitchens and home accessories. To ensure our customers experience the 'wow factor' every time they visit, you will:
You and what you'll needYou'll be a genuinely caring and friendly person with a real passion for excellent service and stunning interiors. You'll have a keen eye for detail and will understand the importance of presentation, personally and in store. Our customers love our products so much that we keep our stores open for them seven days a week so flexibility is essential. What we can offerNot only do we offer a competitive salary but also a discretionary incentive scheme, pension and a great range of other benefits. If we've engaged your senses and you'd like to know more, please send your CV and current salary details to us. Find out more about us on Facebook and Instagram. Neptune…improving the customer experience. We're fortunate to receive hundreds and hundreds of applications every week. You'll never receive an automated response from us - it's something that we find too impersonal - and while we try to respond to every email, the sheer volume sometimes makes that difficult. So, if you don't hear from us within 14 days, this means your application hasn't been successful but we thank you very much for your interest.