 How often have we heard the saying, "Well that's the pot calling the kettle black!"? Apparently we have been saying it since the 17th century to those of us who accuse others of things of which we are actually guilty. In other words, if someone is lying about something, they accuse another of being a liar. Originating in Spain it spawns from a translation of the novel "Don Quixote". It's a perfect example of psychological projection. Projection is when a person unconsciously takes unwanted traits or emotions that they don't like about themselves and attributes them to someone else. Projection is something we all may do at one point or another. Sometimes it's the result of a stressor that triggers it. If however it is a pattern of behaviour it may be a mental health issue that runs much deeper than simply a stressful day at the office.
The person suffering from mental health issues that include projection and paranoia can create the most outlandish, bizarre and detailed stories - that grow larger and more complex each time they begin to relate it to someone. The things that they fear or dislike most about themselves - they project onto others. Dishonesty. Misfeasance. Poor money management. Illegal acts. As their story grows and changes, they amass more 'proof' that their theory is true and they begin condemning innocent people of committing acts of which they are not responsible. Left unchecked - these unproven accusations often turn into legal battles. The accuser - the modern day Don Quixote - sets out to right all the wrongs that he has uncovered and may use the internet and the legal system to bring the 'battle' to light - so that all may see his good deeds in uncovering the wrongs of the world. Unfortunately - I have watched this happen - in real time. The irony is that the person complaining of public servants wasting the taxpayers money is unfortunately himself, the guilty party. The conspiracy theory he has conjured up is simply a fable where he believes he can right the wrongs committed single handedly and this makes him feel important. In his mind he is the one person who can right the wrongs of the world - or in some cases of the community. He is the modern day "knight tilting at windmills". In the end, the projection of this 'knight' - accuses someone else ( or many others ) of lying - and creates a fantastical story to support it. Untangling the web that has been created of unrelated 'facts' can take years. And if the accuser, the modern day Don Quixote has managed to get the complaint into the legal system, the perpetrator of the fantasy will have wasted thousands of taxpayer's dollars accusing others' of wasting taxpayer's dollars. And that my friend, is a perfect example of the "pot calling the kettle black". * CITATION: Duncan v. Buckles, 2021 ONSC 1158 COURT FILE NO.: CV-18-594616 DATE: 20210216 Note to the reader:This opinion is not written to discourage anyone from applying sound judgement to civic decisions and critiquing events occurring in their communities. Discourse surrounding any governmental decision is an important part of our society and part of free speech guaranteed under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Grounded in fact, criticism can set into motion changes that benefit us all and keep our politicians and decision makers on track to do the will of the people.
0 Comments
 Have you ever encountered someone who simply cannot take direction from a teacher, a parent, a team member or even a Judge? If this same person hostile towards authority figures, is angry and vindictive towards others and cannot control thier emotions - they may be suffering from Oppositional Defiance Disorder. (ODD) Oppositional Defiance Disorder usually presents in children and is a behavioural disorder. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, "Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD) is thought to be caused by a combination of biological, psychological, and social factors. " In many cases with treatment this disorder is resolved as the child gets older and usually within 3 years. Undiagnosed and untreated it may blossom. Is ODD something one can carry into adulthood? Yes. Over our lifetimes many of us have encountered individuals who in our view 'throw temper tantrums like a five year old'. The phrases "Grow up!" or "act your age, not your shoe size" is a pretty good indicator that almost everyone has seen someone act as defiant as a young child, foot stomped, lip out, arms crossed - who rebels against any authority. "Adults with oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) feel mad at the world, misunderstood, hemmed in, and pushed around. Their constant opposition to authority figures can make it difficult to keep jobs or maintain relationships and marriages. In other words, ODD interferes with patients’ personal and professional lives and it does so without rest." - Read more here: www.additudemag.com/screener-oppositional-defiant-disorder-symptoms-test-adults/
Instead of recognizing that what they had done was not socially acceptable, they became angry at those who had taken steps to stop their behaviour from affecting others. Opting to take their dog to an area where off leash was not permitted - their dog while running of leash through the thicket in the woods - impaled itself and died. The dog owner then blamed the mayor of the town for his dog's death. Later they also blamed a police officer that was not even involved. Not once did they realize how they themself had started the dominoes to fall. Now it could be that this person was just angry at the world and had to find someone to blame for the death of their pet. But if this behaviour was a pattern of blaming others, combined with not accepting the consequences of their own actions, and a vindictiveness aimed towards others - it might be indicators that they are suffering from ODD, or some other anti-social personality disorder.
Mental disorders in our society have always existed. But in today's world, the ability of someone suffering from a mental disorder has the ability to find an audience - through the internet. I often wonder if we as a society are able to distinguish inappropriate behaviour and find a way to curb it - so that the people exhibiting symptons can be stopped before they hurt others. If it truly is ODD that a person is displaying - they need help from a professional. If it isn't ODD - and simply bad behaviour, perhaps we need to call them out on it so that the problem does not get worse.  Many years ago, I worked with a counsellor who was holding a seminar on marriage reparation. Over coffee she explained how she could predict if a marriage was repairable. One of the signs she described that indicated to her that the marriage was in serious trouble, was when one of the couple rolled their eyes when the other was expressing a feeling or recounting an event. She identified this as contempt. What is contempt? Defined by many dictionaries, it incudes defiance, showing disdain and disrespect and a disregard of the rules. It also illustrated by a lack of respect for a person or disregard for something that should be taken into account. In my time in policing, I had the opportunity to attend court well over a hundred times. I became aware of a criminal charge called "comtempt of court". Contempt in a criminal court setting is characterized as disobeying the Judge or showing no respect for the Judge's decisions. A person can also be found in contempt if they show no respect for the rules or decorum of the court. We have all seen movies where an accused becomes verbally abusive or assaults a guard and a Judge has them removed from the Courtroom and cites them for contempt - right from the bench. It was rare that a Judge cited or convicted someone with "contempt of court" as most Judges were aware that people often did not know all the rules or the consequences of showing contempt by disobeying a Judge. And the accused usually changed their behaviour once they were made aware of the consequences of doing so. Civil Court however is a little different than criminal court. Over the last 6 years, I have watched many court appearances in Civil Court - based on torts and not criminal law. I have also observed many instances of someone showing contempt for the rules of the court, the rule of law, or the order of a Judge. When someone flagrantly defies an order of a Judge, a motion can be brought before the court to show the Judge how the person defied the order. When this happens, the Judge may find the person 'in contempt of court'. Judges however have no interest in jailing someone for contempt in a civil matter and usually the contempt sentencing includes a fine payable to the court. An example might be - someone is ordered not to repeat certain phrases that defames another person. If that someone continues to speak or write the words they are ordered not to speak they may be found in contempt. A Judge will usually rebuke the person and give them time (2 weeks - 30 days) to make reparations - letting them 'purge' their contempt. When they return to court for sentencing, the accused then has the opportunity to show how they have purged the contempt. A Judge is usually more lenient if someone shows true remorse for their actions that resulted the contempt finding. It is rare that a person is found in contempt more than a couple of times - especially if they end up paying hefty fines.
 We watch too much American TV. Just ask any Canuck that you know, what drinking and driving is called and they will say "It's a DUI" No it is not. We are Canadian. It is called "Impaired driving" or "operating a motor vehicle with more than 80 mg of alcohol in 100 ml of blood" - or 'over 80' in slang format. The other day someone I know got a speeding ticket - and they wanted to fight it because they didn't want a 'felony' on their record. I almost choked on my "Tim Horton's Double Double". In Canada there is no such thing as felonies nor are there misdemeanors. Criminal offences are categorized as 'Indictable', 'Summary Conviction' or 'Hybrid' offences. Each determining the seriousness of the offence and the legal process it follows. Yes. We watch too much American T.V. Over the last several years there has been an incredible amount of coverage on American television of poor police procedures that resulted in not only injuries and deaths, but sparked protests, riots and other civil unrest. Canada has also had news coverage of issues surrounding police procedures - but the issues are much different. In Canada, police officers are trained much differently than the USA - and I don't know of one contemporary police officer in Canada that was hired and began working as an officer without a lot of training. Canada is unlike in the USA in this respect - where state by state and jurisdiction by jurisdiction, the requirements for hiring and training of police officers is very different. Additionally, none of our 'sheriffs' or chiefs are elected. They must have experience - not popularity. It's a much different system. Which brings me to 'arrest', the Canadian way. To be arrested in Canada by a police officer - the officer must have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the person they are arresting committed an offence. For example if the police receive a complaint of assault - they do not just hop in the car - activate the siren, race to the accused's home, bust down the door and drag the 'perp' out kicking and screaming all while playing "bad boys, bad boys" in the background.
When you consider the definiton of 'force' and you apply it to say, "being given a ticket that the officer slides between the arm and the torso" - this cannot be called assault as no force was applied. Especially if the ticket then falls to the ground. Clearly at this point it is safe to assume no force was applied - as the ticket did not remain in the place the officer inserted it. Other things an officer may consider is the consistency of the complaint that the complainant gave the officer. If at first the complainant says "the officer shoved it into my man-bag" and then changed the story to "the officer shoved it into my armpit" - the police agency receiving the report may not find the complaint credible. Either way - if there was no intentional force applied - there was no assault. How then, can spitting on someone be considered assault? There was 'force applied intentionally'. However, if the victim does not complain to the police about the assault - there would be no arrest. There always has to be a victim in a simple assault.
 Since the original article came out reporting Justice Pollak's January 3rd 2023 decision which received some press coverage, I have had a number of people call me and tell me their stories of defamation and harassment. My best advice to them begins by advising them to let the perpetrator know that what they are doing is unwanted attention - and begin to document any further contact or harassment. As many people know - before I moved forward with launching the lawsuit that I eventually won, I felt harassed. Many would agree that I was being harassed - and the police, after taking my statement and reviewing the evidence also agreed. As a result, they laid a criminal harassment charge on the individual. Many people, both men and women, have in their lifetime - felt harassed. In general, if they are able - they resolve the issue without involving the police. In some cases, the harassment is not considered criminal. There is a distinction between criminal harassment and just feeling harassed. What is Criminal Harassment?
In Canada - this is called free speech - and we are all guaranteed that right - to speak freely and to express opinions. When is free speech no longer free? "You won your case - so move on." Yes. I won the defamation case. But the fact remains - I am forever changed, wounded and sad for myself and anyone else who has experienced this kind of abusive verbal and emotional violence. Anyone who knows me - knows that I am a strong and determined woman. For almost six years, I was defamed over and over and over online. All because one person did not like how I did my job, nor did he like that I did not back down and refused to answer a personal question that I felt he had no right to know. And so he began trolling me - looking into my past and rewriting it to suit his narrative. He even found one of my daughters and mocked her for winning a criminal court case - where she put a rapist in jail. Defamation is really a whitewashed word for what happened to me. There is no emotion attached to the word. Neither does the word defamation encompass the harassment, the verbal violence, and the intrusion into my personal life that for me - drove me into silence and hiding. When someone starts a smear campaign against you - online - it can be almost impossible to fight back. There is no way to know how many people have been sent messages that portray you as a liar, a cheater, a psychotic depressive, a child bride, someone who cuckolded their spouse, someone who drinks and drives and someone who is not qualified to work at the job where they are employed.
 Did you know that the catch phrase "Just the facts Ma'am" attributed to Joe Friday on the show Dragnet, was never really said by the origial Joe Friday? Is that the truth? Or is it a fact? Well the truth is - it is a fact!
I've often thought that 'swearing to tell the truth and nothing but the truth' in court was a little problematic. One person's truth may not be another person's truth. Hence conflicting testimony. What we are looking for in reality is facts. Facts that illustrate what has happened. (or is happening) Facts are always supported by 'hard evidence'. Unfortunately sometimes despite searching for hard evidence we are unable to find it.
That being said - I would not consider myself a 'top' investigator. There are many courses I did not take and there are thousands (I would think) of police officers with more training and experience than I have. Over time there have been hundreds of television shows and movies based on investigating crime. From produced shows as early as "Dragnet" to more current shows like "Forensic Files" - they have progressed from showing the dramatized day to day policing to showing the behind the scenes progression of investigations - start to finish. There is fabulous entertainment value and interest in these shows - or the production companies would stop creating both the fictional and 'real life' versions of investigating crimes. The danger here - is that occasionally there are those who feel that not only have they learned enough from these shows to 'investigate' perceived 'crimes' or wrong doings, but some of these same people also begin 'connecting dots' of things that they believe are related to perceived wrong doings - and create much bigger stories that they think they have evidence of. When they are simply critics - we call them 'armchair quarterbacks'. When they decide - 'hey I can do that" - without any understanding of how to investigate and collect evidence, and then rely on their imaginations, suppositions or opinions of what has happened - we call these people conspiracy theorists and their stories conspiracy theories. They simply connect dots that do not exist. They weave detailed, fantastical stories with 'facts' they derive from their own imagination. A rational person asks questions - looks for the factual answers and forms an opinion. If they think something illegal is happening or a crime has been committed - they call a 'trained investigator' to investigate further and collect the evidence to either prove or refute the legality of the event(s). A conspiracy theorist sees something they think is wrong or that they do not like or agree with and begin looking for evidence to support their ideas or claims. When they cannot find real evidence they use wishful thinking to tie things all together. Example: A taxpayer does not like a municipal employee - and disagrees with how they do their job. When their complaints are not addressed in the manner they would like or their complaints go unanswered because they cannot be substantiated - they begin looking for evidence of a cover up. After all - if someone does not see what they see - or agree with what they see, that someone MUST be wrong or worse, covering up! Surely that employee was a bad hire! There mustn't have been a job posting and they suppose the employee was hand selected and parachuted into the position. Were they interviewed? They couldn't have been! How were they hired? Did they provide a police background check? Were references called? Did they get hired because the 'knew' the right person? One step at a time - they begin to put a story together. They begin to tell others that the municipality must not have done their job! By the time they have 'connected the dots' - every piece of the story they have connected together is incorrect and there are no facts to support their claims.
No matter how loudly or how often someone SHOUTS about something of which they have no evidence - without true investigation and collecting of factual evidence - their shouting is simply A LOT OF NOISE.
And the person who makes a lot of noise about nothing my friends, is simpy an INSTIGATOR.  When I was a little girl, I recall the childhood sing song, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me!" Thank goodness we repeated this and other sing song affirmations, over and over in the playground when bullies called us names or accused us of things we did not do. It helped us to believe in the best of ourselves. "Liar,liar, pants on fire!" Oh the childhood cruelties we experienced. But most of us grew up - and we survived our childhood mini-traumas and emerged stronger as a result. Unfortunately, some bullies never grow up. Perhaps this is true of the bully who has been trolling me for many years. Bullies are often very insecure people. Their focus on others keeps the focus on their own short comings out of the public eye. Over the past several years, I have been bullied online - and the accusations have been everything from - "she is not who she says she is" to "she was a child bride". (yeah - we can talk about that in another post!) When hearing and reading things that were said and written about me - I felt that my best defense was to remain quiet. People will believe what they choose to believe. Some people in this world still believe that the world is flat - contrary to every bit of evidence presented to them. I know that the people who know me - the important people - know WHO I am. They have seen the evidence over the years.
He has blogged about it - accused lawyers of not properly identifying me, told several judges that I am not Mandie Eddie and even insisted that he has evidence that I am not who I claim to be. Unfortunately, repeating something over and over does not necessarily make it true. It may make the person repeating it believe it is true - but simply repeating something that has no basis in fact - cannot change the 'fact'. Sticks and stones may break my bones - but your continual insistence that my name is not my name WILL hurt you! So let me set the record straight. For the Bully.. I would draw a diagram - but I am not sure that would help. (chuckle) As many women can attest to - when we marry - we often assume our husband's name - as I did. To do this - we simply show our marriage certificate at Service Ontario (If we live in Ontario) and we can have our driver's license and health card changed to our husband's name. We can ASSUME his surname. In Quebec - the laws are somewhat different - in that if you want to assume your husband's surname - you must keep your own and then hyphenate your maiden name to the surname of your husband to do this. In Quebec - I would have been Mandie Eddie-Crawford. However - I live in Ontario. And so when I married my husband - I assumed his surname, legally. I did not legally change my name on my birth certificate. I had no need to. I never changed my S.I.N. I had no need to. Legally I was still Mandie Eddie - "also known as" - Mandie Crawford. In Ontario, when you become divorced or you chose not to continue to have the surname of your spouse, you can easily revert to your maiden name. A quick visit to Service Ontario with your birth certificate, your SIN, your marriage certificate and if needed, a divorce certificate will allow you to change your documents to revert to your maiden name - the name you were born with. With a single form you can revert to your maiden name - the name you were born with, the name that is on your birth certificate. And similarly, with a trip to a Service Canada site - you can also ensure that your passport has your maiden name on it. And yes with one form - after producing the proper documents. There is no need to go through a legal name change process. This is legal - and quite a normal procedure in Ontario. And on June 5th and 6th, 2017, this is what I did. I attended a Service Ontario office and presented the required documents, filled in the correct forms and reverted to my maiden name. The important people in my life knew why. The "why", really was no one elses' business.
So to the Bully who insists I am not who I say I am - it's time for you to learn that the world does not always work they way YOU think it works.
And - oh yeah - in case you wondered, no, the world is not flat. Mandie Eddie (always - and from the beginning!) |
Mandie EddieI've had many different jobs, from lifeguard to Business Owner, to Police Officer and Firefighter , Municipal Manager and Public Information Officer and finally to being self employed. Unlike George Santos however - I have never claimed to play volleyball - nor have I claimed to have attended a college I have not attended. ArchivesCategories |
RSS Feed