Child Dies After Mistaking Lethal Dose of Meth for Breakfast – Police

I should have some sympathy for this dad, but instead I think he should be charged with manslaughter. So many children suffer unbelievably, horrible things because their parent(s) treat them as less important than the drugs they are doing. This has to stop! There should be no lenience from the courts for these people and child services should have zero tolerance for parents with children who are doing drugs.

A file photo of crystal meth. / Reuters

An Indiana father has been arrested after toxicology reports showed his 8-year-old son died due to ingesting 180 times the lethal dose of methamphetamine thinking it was breakfast.

Jackson County police say Curtis Collman III mistook a stash of the drug found at his father’s home for food while he was staying at the Seymour property on June 21. The methamphetamine was discovered on a plate and eaten by the young boy who subsequently fell extremely ill, reported WIS TV.

The 8-year-old’s father, Curtis Collman II, has now been charged with possession of the illegal drug as well as negligence of a dependant. An autopsy released on Thursday revealed the child had 18,000 nanograms of meth in his system, reported the Seymour Tribune newspaper. The dosage is 180 times what is generally considered lethal.

Negligence is not enough. The man was complicit in his son's death and should be charged as such.

Curtis Collman II is alleged to have refused to call emergency services after the accident and he instead drove his son from Seymour to Crothersville town.

The boy’s grandmother has since paid tribute to the child who was described as being “full of life.”

“He enjoyed riding his bicycle,” Rita Cook told ABC affiliate WALB news. “He enjoyed riding his scooter, he loved to watch Spongebob. He was a Minecraft tutorial person. He could tell you anything about Minecraft. He just loved life.”

18 Year Old Sex Assault Allegation Paints Justin Trudeau into His Own Corner

Trudeau has boxed himself in with his own zero-tolerance policy on sexual misconduct: Robyn Urback

An 18-year-old allegation against Trudeau, originally printed in a community paper,

resurfaced this month

Robyn Urback · CBC News 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has made clear, over and over again, that there is no time limit on defending women's rights or for standing up for what is right. (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)

If the climate in Canada were different, an 18-year-old allegation of sexual misconduct against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would be swiftly addressed, then probably dismissed.

The allegation originally appeared in an August 2000 edition of the Creston Valley Advance, a small community newspaper in B.C. The editorial, which resurfaced earlier this month, claimed that the then-28-year-old Trudeau "groped" a young reporter at a music festival, noting that he only apologized when he learned that she worked for a newspaper.

If there was no merit to the allegation, in this hypothetical alternative climate, the Prime Minister's Office could simply say so.

If there was merit to the allegation — again, theoretically speaking — Trudeau could concede that he had indeed behaved unacceptably, and remind us that he has since devoted his life to defending the integrity of all Canadians, but especially women.

Again, only if the climate in Canada were different.

In reality, neither of these options is available to Trudeau.

Cannot recall 'negative interactions'

If the allegation is false (CBC News continues to investigate the claim) Trudeau doesn't really have the option, from a political perspective, to say so.

In the current climate, denying the claim is akin to saying, "She's lying," which is a taboo phrase for the leader of a government that has made believing women central to its approach to sexual misconduct allegations.

If the allegation is true, on the other hand, Trudeau can't simply explain, apologize and attempt to move on. It would look like he afforded himself leniency that he'd denied to members of his caucus who were accused of misconduct.

So the prime minister is stuck: he can't confirm or deny. As a result, his office opted for the most unsatisfactory of all possible responses, telling the National Post that Trudeau does not recall any "negative interactions" in Creston during that time. In other words, Canada's highest-profile women's rights advocate has been stricken by a convenient bout of amnesia. 

There is room to distinguish this allegation from some of the others that have plagued Ottawa over the past couple of years. The claim is from nearly two decades ago, long before Trudeau entered politics, and without the power imbalance we sometimes see in cases where prominent men abuse their authority. For those reasons, some will surely argue that Trudeau is being unfairly railroaded by a movement that lacks necessary nuance.

And indeed, there would be ample sympathy for this notion, had Trudeau not helped to create the very climate to which he is now vulnerable. 

In 2014, he suspended two MPs from the Liberal caucus after allegations surfaced about sexual misconduct. Trudeau publicly named the two — Scott Andrews and Massimo Pacetti — before actually informing them of the allegations against them. A subsequent independent investigation concluded there was merit to the complaints, though they were of two decidedly different natures: Andrews was accused of harassing behaviour, unwelcome groping and grinding, while Pacetti was accused of sex without "explicit" consent. 

There are different contexts, implications and considerations when it comes to what these different claims mean, but the Liberal machine nevertheless lumped them together, forcing the pair to share headlines, a hired investigator, and an announcement of their expulsion. Andrews eventually accepted the findings of the review, saying he's since learned how his "jovial Newfoundland friendliness can be perceived," but Pacetti has always maintained his innocence. That important distinction is often overlooked. 

Alberta MP Kent Hehr is out of the federal cabinet permanently following an investigation into his conduct with women.

(Fred Chartrand/Canadian Press)

More recently, Kent Hehr, once the minister for sports and persons with disabilities, stepped down from cabinet, initially temporarily, in response to allegations that he made sexually suggestive and other unwelcome comments to a woman in an elevator, and touched a woman inappropriately at an event. Though the subsequent independent investigation found the touch was involuntary (Hehr is a quadriplegic and has limited feeling in and control of his limbs), Hehr conceded that his comments were inappropriate, even though he says he cannot remember the interaction. In any case, Hehr will not return to cabinet.

Interestingly, Hehr managed to maintain his cabinet position up to that point, despite reportedly telling thalidomide survivors that "everyone in Canada has a sob story," and dismissing a Calgary mother's "loaded question" about why the government was denying maternity benefits to sick mothers, saying it was akin to "the old question … 'When did you stop beating your wife?'" 

Perhaps it was simply the weight of all of the allegations that made keeping Hehr in cabinet untenable by the time the sexual misconduct claims landed, but the implication is that while there is some tolerance for cabinet members in terms of disparaging the disabled community, there is zero tolerance for harassing women.

Trudeau: Misconduct standards apply to me, too   03:44   

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the zero-tolerance standards on misconduct toward women applies to him, too, in an exclusive interview with CBC News. Trudeau says women who come forward with allegations of misconduct and sexual harassment should be supported 3:44

Trudeau has said as much in various interviews about his approach to tackling sexual harassment. "We have no tolerance for this — we will not brush things under the rug, but we will take action on it immediately," he told The Canadian Press earlier this year. In a CBC Radio interview around the same time, the prime minister said he should be held to high standards of conduct, adding: "I've been very, very careful all my life to be thoughtful, to be respectful of people's space and people's headspace as well."

In his many interviews on the topic, he has not included an appeal for allowances for youthfulness or genuine remorse, or simply the acknowledgement that people sometimes do bad things. This is not to suggest that any combination of these factors should necessarily exonerate the aforementioned men. I only mean to point out that the excuses that some have already used to defend the prime minister against this one accusation (This was almost 20 years ago!) haven't actually crossed his lips.

Trudeau has essentially boxed himself in with his own zero-tolerance policy. He has made clear, over and over again, that there is no time limit on defending women's rights or for standing up for what is right. This is the climate that Trudeau helped create. He can't forget that now.

It's interesting that opposition parties are being pretty quiet about this so far. Is it a case of, 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone'? Are opposition leaders afraid of being caught in the same net?

Sharia Courts Creating Dual Justice System in UK?

Creeping Sharia?

© / RT

The rising popularity of Sharia courts in the UK is increasing concerns of a parallel justice system emerging. Authorities say they are conducting a review of the process. RT’s Eisa Ali looks at the arguments of those against and in favor of the system.

Sharia councils in the UK say they deal strictly with family matters, such as marriage and child custody battles, but there is concern that they constitute a parallel legal system.

“We believe that Sharia courts discriminate against women and especially against Muslim women,” Nazira Mahmari, of the Iranian and Kurdish Women’s Rights Organisation, told RT.

“We want all women to have the right to access the mainstream system,” she added. Mahmari says she would like to close down all Sharia courts in the UK.

This view is shared by Robin Tilbrook, the founder of the English Democrats Party, who says the British government should be doing more to tackle the problem.

“I think more effort needs to be made by the authorities so that it is simply not allowed that divorce, criminal matters and inheritances are dealt within Sharia courts, particularly where the requirement for women to take part in these is basically being forced on them,” he told RT.

However, there are fears that if all Sharia courts were to be closed down, they would just appear underground, making it harder for them to be regulated.

They are regulated now?

It is said there are some 85 such courts in Britain, but the actual number is unknown, Reuters reports.

So much for regulation! They don't even know how many are operating - they might as well be underground.

Their supporters say much of the criticism concerning these justice systems is due to ignorance about how much power they wield.

Khola Hasan, a scholar from the Islamic Sharia Council defended the need for Sharia courts, saying the English legal system is not interested in certain matters that affect Muslim families.

“English courts are not interested in religious marriages or religious divorces, so we are working alongside the English legal system and all we are doing is providing a religious aspect that English law does not provide,” she told RT.

Home Secretary Teresa May launched an inquiry into these religious councils last month. The Islamic Sharia Council does admit there are issues and say they would welcome government input and regulation of the system.

“There are many Sharia councils that are operating under the radar who do not have any kind of transparency. There is not even a staff sitting [sic], as there is just one person in a backroom,” Hasan said.

© / RT

The minister for Countering Extremism, Lord Ahmad, (a Muslim is Minister for Countering Extremism? Seriously?) said the UK government is looking into whether Sharia courts are misusing the law and are in the process of compiling a report.

"The government is committed to an independent review to understand the extent to which Sharia may be being misused, or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law in the UK. This review will be formally established shortly and we expect an initial report to be issued to the home secretary in 2016,” he said in December.

So, they are not reviewing whether or not the concept of a parallel judicial system is lawful. So, I guess Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Satanists can all start their own judicial system.

Sharia law, practiced in many Middle Eastern countries, is the Islamic legal system, which has been derived from the Koran, as well as taking into account rulings of Islamic scholars. Aside from providing rules for living, such as prayers and fasting, Sharia law can hand down punishments, which can be as severe as cutting off limbs or being beheaded for certain crimes.

In 2014, the Law Society published guidelines under which High Street solicitors would have the ability to write Islamic wills, which can exclude non-believers completely and deny women an equal share of an inheritance.

“The male heirs in most cases receive double the amount inherited by a female heir of the same class. Non-Muslims may not inherit at all, and only Muslim marriages are recognized,” the document states.

There is nothing moderate about Sharia. It is evil, it comes from a Satanic religion, and it has no business in a society where people are equal regardless of sex, colour or religion. The UK and all European countries must have a ZERO tolerance policy toward Sharia. If we give them a little authority, they will abuse it and assume more and more authority and we may not even be aware of it until people start showing up missing a hand or with scars from lashes on their backs. If Muslims want to live under Sharia, there are plenty of countries where they can do that; the UK should not be one of them.