No notwithstanding clause on assisted suicide

In the three months since the Supreme Court of Canada handed down its decision on assisted suicide in Carter v. Attorney General of Canada, there has been a lot of thumb twisting about what to do. The Court gave Parliament a year to come up with something new before the law is officially taken off the books. Given a fall election, it's hard to imagine our legislators will come up with a new law in time by the deadline of February 5 of next year.

In the interim, there have been a number of groups opposed to "death with dignity" who have said the solution is simple - invoke the "notwithstanding clause" to "immunize" the law from court scrutiny.

Too simplistic, in my opinion. There are several reasons, but my opposition to that can be described in two.

First, our national history is full of egregious abuses of human rights. Think how we interned the Japanese and Italians during World War II. How Duplessis mercilessly (and totally unrepentant) persecuted Jehovah's Witnesses and trade union members. How Ontario tried to culturally genocide the francophone population of that province during World War I. And so forth.

Of course, there was no Charter of Rights at that time. The only thing that felled Duplessis, in his case, was the courts ruling he violated the rule of law - that he placed himself above the law. The other items were also rectified, but only at the cost of great embarrassment.

If the Charter of Rights had existed, all the actions above could have been "immunized" by the notwithstanding clause, and our country would have eventually become a pariah in terms of human rights. We don't want to set what would be a very dangerous precedent.

Second, a lot of the proponents of notwithstanding mistakenly believe that it is a permanent fix. It is not. It has a five year sunset clause. Which means we'd be kicking the can down the road. And given just how many people are suffering with no prospect at all of recovery, it's almost cruel that we're telling them that for the sake of expediency they can't exercise the one right able-bodied people have.

We really do need to proceed with caution on this one. But as I've mentioned before, when the rape shield law was struck down more than twenty years ago (as the Court determined it to be "void for vagueness") many women's groups advocated using the notwithstanding clause. Instead, the government took the opportunity to make the law stronger, not weaker. Every single clause of the reformed law passed muster.

Of course, we're dealing with a life and death issue here, but if we consider best practices from national and sub-national jurisdictions that have reformed their laws, we may be able to come up with something that on the one hand ensures the dignity of those who want to die when palliative care, while on the other hand guards against being bullied to commit suicide when it is not medically appropriate. And of course, we can't forget that the near unanimity of physicians will refuse to engage in such a practice, citing the ancient Hippocratic oath to "first do no harm" as well as the modern oath where doctors swear they "will not play God." In that case, what other professionals would be able to take part, and what immunities would they have if something goes wrong?

No easy answers to all that, to be sure. I don't know how to begin to make suggestions.

That said, we don't have much time. We need to get some answers as soon as possible, and hopefully with the widest possible consensus in Parliament. But using the hammer that the law is legal even though it is not legal truly would be "using a sledgehammer to squat a fruit fly".

A same sex marriage, 200 years ago

Is same sex marriage a recent phenomenon? Actually, it isn't. Let me explain.

On Tuesday, the odd legal team of David Boies and Ted Olsen (who opposed each other in the infamous Bush vs Gore debacle) will try to build on their previous victories in striking down Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act. Now, they're going for the jugular at the US Supreme Court and trying to legalize same sex marriage everywhere in America.

But for those who think this is a civil rights movement of recent vintage, it may come as a shock that the battle has been going on for more than two centuries in America. And in the early 1800s, two women actually got away with it and set the precedent. Let me explain.

In the recently published book Charity and Sylvia: A Same-Sex Marriage in Early America by Rachel Hope Cleves, we learn a surprising fact.

Charity Bryant and Sylvia Drake used a loophole in Vermont's common-law marriage statute and lived as a married couple from 1807 to 1851. In fact, Bryant had had at least two lesbian lovers before she settled down with Drake. This is an incredibly moving and sentimental story of love at its purest by two women who were both teachers and tailors by trade, poets by hobby, and deeply religious by practice.

Remarkably, their marriage was tolerated by the community they lived in and prospered. Sadly, much of their shared correspondence was burned so we will never know the true extent of how deeply they were into each other. But the writer does specify that when Vermont formally legalized civil unions and later gay and lesbian marriage, many legislators noted Charity and Sylvia's marriage as their precedent. It was truly a surprising story for me and a delight to read.

That's right, folks, gay marriage is two hundred years old. Let's hope it becomes a permanent fixture in the States just as it is here in Canada. It doesn't bother me, and I don't can't understand why it bothers anyone.

The Senate and transgenders

To my knowledge, I have never met a transgendered person in my life. That does not mean I don't have respect or compassion for those who live the sex opposite of the one they are by birth, or for those who decide to take it to its logical conclusion and have sex reassignment surgery.

Our society has generally become accepting of gays, lesbians and bisexuals, which is a mark in this country's favour. But for some reason the same isn't always true of the transgendered. Maybe it's just fear of the unknown, a lack of understanding what is going on - or in some cases, it's outright prejudice. And sadly this has led to this section of the population being the victims of criminal acts.

It goes without saying, this is just plain wrong.

How surprising it was, then, when two years ago the House of Commons, over the objections of PMS, voted to add "gender identity" as a suspect class (or aggravating circumstance) in determining whether a convicted criminal should receive an enhanced sentence, especially for hate crimes. It's been slowly working its way through the Senate. It went through first and second readings without much fuss, although some Senators argued the law might be unconstitutional since it impeded on provincial human rights codes. A debatable point, but it certainly was one worth discussing.

Two months ago, however, the Senate Justice Committee proposed a series of amendments. Two make sense - ensuring transgendereds are not subject to cyberbullying, and broadening the definition of who is a transgendered person. Fair enough, But then the committee suggested that prisons, crisis centres, and restrooms and change rooms to be exempt from the legislation. (As I write this, I have checked Parliament's website and the amendments have not been acted upon.)

Say what?

I cannot for the life of me understand why this is being brought up. People in this group have a hard enough time dealing with the prejudice of having this orientation. Certainly they have a hard time getting access to "facilities" already. Why are the Conservative Senators making life more difficult than it already is?

This scandal only affirms my belief that Senators should be directly elected, preferably by proportional representation, to get rid of the deadwood and the idiots who want to move this country forwards and not back.

The fact is that even if the Senate accepts the amendments the bill will be tossed back to the House of Commons. There is no doubt that the House would reject them, and a conference committee (extremely rare in Canadian politics although still available as an option) would probably never agree on the wording, let alone the pith and substance. And, let's face it, there just isn't enough time until the October election.

There are only two ways out. The Senate can smarten up, reject the most odious part of the committee report, pass the bill with the palatable amendments, and send it back to the Commons where it would easily get final passage. Or the winning party this fall can reintroduce the bill as part of a series of criminal law amendments.

Has it truly come to this - that we say transgenders are part of our society, but certain restrictions apply? Ethnic groups, religions, races - they didn't accept half-measures in demanding equal treatment. Why should it any different for men who want to live as or become women, and vice versa?

Do we value women or don't we?

I haven't had much to say since the shootings on Parliament Hill back in October, but today's news that Jian Ghomeshi is facing three new charges, all from three new women who previously kept silent, is making me ask who we are as a society and why some people are allowed to get away with such reprehensible behaviour.

When the story broke last year, a reporter who had been following the story but hadn't gone anywhere tried to approach Ghomeshi to answer some simple yes or no questions. What he got instead was a cryptic answer that went along the lines of, "Toronto isn't that big of a city and I have a very long memory so be careful what you write." That line, you'd think, would demand immediate publication. Why the hold back? Was the Moxy Fruvous alumni really that powerful in show business that it got pushed back, until the showdown at 250 Front West?

A few weeks back, we got some insight into the two NDP MPs who claimed they were sexually harassed by two Liberal MPs and how there was an uproar when Justin Trudeau made the allegations public without naming the names of the alleged victims. Then we learn one of the women said she spent an evening with one of the accused, and something happened. All we know is, the woman says she didn't say yes but she didn't say no either. I don't think there is any ambiguity in the law on that one. The Criminal Code states only a yes is a yes, so we're talking sexual assault, not merely harassment.

They may be among the high profile cases, along with Bill Cosby, but generally this kind of thing gets ignored. And that's wrong. This isn't a progressive or a conservative issue, this is a matter of human rights. If a woman - or a man - is made to feel less human because of his or her sex, sexual orientation or gender identity, then it is discrimination, plain and simple.

The Old Boys Club (no offence to the graduates of Upper Canada College which is where we get the name) has to be smashed wide open. Men like me need to speak openly about it and say we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. If our daughters were treated like that, we'd scream bloody murder; so why is it okay when it happens to a colleague, we know about it, and say nothing? It's not. By being silent, we're being complicit.

But it's not enough for people to speak up. The process has to change so that a complaint is dealt with seriously by management and not done as a window dressing exercise. And where there is use of force, the police must be involved.

I may be stating the obvious, but there still seems to be a lack of common sense. It's a good thing men as well as women are finally having the conversation we so desperately need. But it has to be ongoing and it can't end while the criminal process is continuing. If people knew at the CBC and did nothing, they should be fired too - and that includes the anchor pool.

Doing right by sex trade workers

Due to multiple technical issues I haven't been able until now to comment on the Supreme Court's decision in Attorney General of Canada v. Bedford on December 20th but all I can say is it was absolutely the right decision.   What surprised me was that it lined up 9-0, I was expecting 5-4.   Given that five of the justices were appointed by PMS and one by Mulroney, one might expect conservative thought to win, but as we have come to expect, the Court thankfully looked at the big picture and agreed that the three provisions of the Criminal Code at dispute -- running a whorehouse, communication for the purposes of sex and living off the avails of prostitution -- were meant to go after pimps and johns but instead went after the very people the law was designed to protect, sex trade workers, and that was unconstitutional.   If you haven't read the decision, do so at the link, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin doesn't mince words about the dangers of the business or the real harm it causes the victims but that there has to be a better way.

By no means should this be seen as a total victory.   The rights of workers in the trade have been guaranteed but there is still exploitation, especially with teens and immigrants.

That said, I had to laugh when I heard the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada -- which with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and REAL Women (no surprise on the last one) filed a joint amicus curiae brief against the women who filed the original petition during the appeal -- said the best way forward in light of the judgment was to just ban prostitution altogether (it has been legal ante the ruling).    Don't go after prostitutes, just the pimps and johns.

Well, two points.   As I said above the law was meant to go after those two groups but the way the law was constructed made them go off relatively free.   Of course we should be going after the exploiters.

But making it illegal?    That would just force everything underground and make things even worse for the workers, especially the women.   It's those workers who are our front line.   They know what's going on with their fellow workers.   They know what's going on in the underground.   They're the ones the police should be going to first when there are missing women and missing teens.   They shouldn't be ostracized because of their chosen profession.

I am almost certain I would never hire an escort or another else woman in the trade for "services".   (Right now I can't afford it anyway!)    But I think both men and women who want to purchase such services should have a reasonable expectation his or her temporary partner isn't being exploited.

Don't forget, the Mafia got its start with Prohibition.   By the time alcohol was made legal again, they were firmly entrenched and now control at least 10% of our economy.    They definitely have their hands on prostitution.  Do you think it'll get better with making that illegal?   Really?   (Apologies to Seth Meyers and Amy Pohler.)

I say, totally legalize it, with appropriate safeguards.   If rape occurs during a paid for transaction, then it should become a hate crime with enhanced penalties just like any other crime motivated by hate.   Empower the workers to help the police go after the real scums -- those who do exploit people for the money or the hell of it.

Tax it.   This is a huge revenue stream waiting to be tapped into.   It may be a bridge too far for the incumbent government but with fiscal restraint it cannot be ignored.

This is an opportunity to fix the law.   But the PM may have other ideas, and not just because he's an evangelical (although many friends of mine at work who are support the decision).

I'm sure Harper is tempted to use the "notwithstanding clause" which would reinstate the ante quo and kick the issue down the road for another five years.    But there is a strong precedent his Attorney General, Peter MacKay, can use instead.

When the original rape shield law was "voided for vagueness" in 1992, women's groups were clamouring for the clause to be invoked.   But as the then AG Kim Campbell pointed out, the fact the law was vague did neither attackers nor victims any good.   Not the victims because it wasn't clear what evidence was excludable    Not the defendants because they didn't know on what basis they could defend themselves.

The statute that replaced it, which passed unanimously in both Houses (when has that happened under Harper?) was the "no means no" law.   Not only did it put in clearer guidelines for when a victim's past sex history could be used, the law also created a nine-point test to determine if there was consent to sexual activity.    It has survived court scrutiny, and more important there have been a higher number of convictions for sexual assault.

The point:    Rework the nullified provisions.    Make it clear who gets protection under the law and who doesn't.   If it means expanding and tightening "no means no" by all means do so.   But don't make the whole business illegal.    Then it's society as a whole that will be the victims, not just sex trade workers.

"I've got more than enough to eat at home," Ford says

You couldn't get the best scriptwriters in Hollywood or Broadway to come up with this line.   Rob Ford, responding this morning to numerous allegations that he hired a call girl to visit his office in Toronto (among other allegations of downing mickeys in one shot and DUI), said they were untrue.    But then Ford went after one of his former assistants who talked to the police, a woman who claims he sexually harassed her with lewd comments about his own sex life:

"Oh and the last thing was Olivia Gondek," Ford said, "it says it says [sic] that I wanted to eat her pussy. Olivia Gondek, I've never said that in my life to her. I would never do that. I'm happily married. I've got more than enough to eat at home. Thank you very much."

If your spouse or common-law partner talked about you like that, in public, you'd be very tempted to serve the other half with separation papers.  More than likely, you would.   But of course, this is Rob Ford.

A couple of hours later he apologized twice (never sorry, so it means squat) then said he has been in professional counselling.   That would have been helpful to know ... last week.

All the city council in Toronto can do is strip him of his ex officio duties (jobs he holds by virtue of being Mayor).   But it would be better than nothing.    Toronto needed some fiscal conservatism even in a very liberal city, but Ford has undermined his role with all this crap.    Can't he just call a time out?    Please?

Henry Morgentaler dead

Love him or hate him, you can't deny Henry Morgentaler -- who died today age 90 -- changed the way we Canadians thought about the rights of women.

Arkansas: Crossing the line of decency

Arkansas has finally gone too far when it comes to women.   Really.   This is a new forward advance in the war against women and it's awful.   And it's on abortion.

If you've followed my entries here you know that I think abortion is absolutely despicable and that Canada should have some kind of line drawn at when restrictions kick in (Canada, of course doesn't have any) provided the debate is truly honest and not disingenous as the really out to the right Con backbenchers have attempted.

I reluctantly recognize that it is a right, though, and further to that right women should be given as many options as possible.   To deter abortions, I have also argued for sustantial increases in the child tax credits, making adoption expenses fully refundable (currently it's just a 15% credit with a cap) and ensuring that women have full access to as many pre-natal support programs for free or at very low cost.

The legislature in Arkansas has passed a law overriding the governor's veto banning abortions at just twelve weeks, in many cases past when many women even find out they are pregnant.   Further, it would ban an abortion if a heartbeat is detectible which can happen even before twelve weeks.  This is well short of the US Supreme Court's sense on this more than twenty years ago, when in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision it allowed states to put restrictions at viability, between twenty and twenty-eight weeks (and many states merely enforce its laws at the median, twenty-four).   Medically viability means the baby has a chance in the incubator if there is a premature delivery -- and while medical progress may have pushed the line to an earlier point I doubt very much we've pushed it back even to a median of twenty.

There're only two reasons to do this.   One, to take away women's freedom to decide for themselves when to get pregnant or not.   Two, if they're the victims of incest or a rape, to legally eliminate the process which would allow women to try to purge the shame of being victims.

This isn't a game.   Women's lives and integrity are at stake.   And until real solutions are implemented that make abortion so socially undesirable that it's eliminated by choice (pardon the expression), it should remain a right.   The courts should strike this down.  The law is misogynist.  Plain and simple..

"Binders of women", Mitt?

There have been many foot in mouth moments in debates over the years.   Think Gerry Ford's comments in 1976 about how he would not allow the USSR to dominate Poland (of course, Poland had been a client state of Moscow since WW2).   Carter saying that his daughter and youngest child (by far), then 13 year old  Amy, told him that nuclear disarmament was the biggest issue of the 1980 campaign.   Bush 41 in 1992 saying that Jim Baker, not him, would be in charge of the budget process.  Same campaign, Ross Perot saying he was "all ears" -- then an actual pause for emphasis -- if anyone had better ideas to fix the economy than he did.   And on it goes.

But really -- "binders of women" that were provided by women's advocacy groups?   That's how Mitt Romney explained how he selected female members of his cabinet whilst Governor of Massachusetts.    Maybe it's because things register slower for me than most others, but it took a minute before I realized the unintended double entendre.   This during a discussion between Romney and President Obama about the principle of equal pay for women -- which really should be equal pay for work of equal value.

That and his accusal of Obama not calling the attack on the Bengazi consulate a terrorist attack for 10 days, when in fact the President did so the day after (as the moderator, Candy Crowley pointed out, transcript in hand), didn't do much to enhance Romney's credibility.   It may have worsened it.

Overall, the debate was definitely Obama's, as the town hall format suits his style more than Romney's.   And Ms Crowley definitely was in control unlike Jim Lehrer (uncharacteristically) two weeks ago.

But while a campaign should be about more substantive issues, particularly on both foreign and domestic policies, women still are a majority of people in the States, and they vote more as a percentage of the group than men do of theirs.   And this isn't something that will slip and slide like non-stick coating.   After all, they aren't just a page in a binder.   Every woman, and every man, has a story to tell, each of which would fill several filing cabinets.

SCOC grants standing in sex-trade case

The Supreme Court of Canada has done the right thing by agreeing to consider the appeal regarding the prostitution laws in this country.    In a 53 page decision and on behalf of a unanimous court (PDF), Associate Justice Thomas A. Cromwell said that while the women who filed the class action lawsuit from Vancouver's Downtown East Side (DTES) may not represent an active criminal case at this moment in time (in the sense that none of the women leading the class are facing prosecution nor are victims who have filed charges against attackers); but the argument they present is clearly in the public interest and that there has to be certainty as to what the law in this matter should be.

Therefore, wrote Cromwell, the attempts by Team PMS to quash the litigation and have the laws kept as is without a hearing should be trashed -- and as a result the case has been remanded back to the BC courts for further hearing.

Frankly I think the SCC should have taken it further and instead actually had a full oral hearing now, consolidated with the parallel case from Ontario -- simply delaying that hearing only gives PMS even more time to demonize victims rather than helping them as he claims.    I do not as a rule like courts rewriting laws but if it is in the public interest to strike down patently unfair laws and Parliament or the majority in the legislature refuses to even consider the issue, then the courts should do so with due course.    This is clearly a case of the "cure being worse than the disease" and we need to address it ASAP.   Parliament should take the lead here but it's not going to happen with the so-called so-cons.

It is my hope that whatever the result is, a more practical and humane approach to the issue comes out.    We must absolutely put our foot down on the rape and torture of prostitutes, and have zero tolerance for anyone who enslaves someone under eighteen whether for sex or not, but the current status quo is untenable.

There should be laws that actually make sense -- that go after pimps and other predators -- and not go after sex trade workers or to make it a crime to report a sexual assault merely because one is in the trade himself or herself by choice or coercion.   In other words we should actually protect the rights of those who are voluntarily in the trade and helps the already victimized -- and not give the advantage to the bad guys, or make cowards out of the rest of us.

Since when was rape "legitimate"?

Just when we thought VP Joe Biden Jr had shot off his mouth yet again when he said that bank deregulation like what Mitt Romney is proposing would put Americans -- blacks in particular -- "in chains" (which would not be my choice of words) ...

... comes this moron, Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO 2), challenging Dem Senator Claire McCaskill, who actually had the temerity to say a woman's body can induce a miscarriage in case of a "legitimate rape."   He later clarified this to mean "forcible rape" but that made things worse.  Even the GOP is furious and has demanded he "do what's best for the country" (i.e. withdraw his candidacy) by 5 PM Central today (2200 GMT); or they will get the courts to strip him of his party's line on the ballot.   Akin has backtracked today only slightly, saying "I apologize."   We all know what that means.   Absolutely nothing.

McCaskill, the widow of Mel (and who took his Senate seat when he unexpectedly died before the 2000 election -- and "the dead guy won" over John Ashcroft who promptly got Dubya's AG slot) -- has been seen as "vulnerable" this time around due to Barack Obama's lackluster performance as President; but this snide remark by Akin is more than an unexpected lucky break.   It's a piñata filled with gold coins.

There are people on both sides of the aisle, both men and women, who have nothing but contempt for "the better half" but Akin's screed is more than just reprehensible.   It has no consciousness behind it whatsoever.

I know women who have been raped.   Most had an abortion.   The rest carried to term.   But none of them had the expectation they would be able to prevent a pregnancy by willing it.   Heck, even women who do have consensual sex with their male partner know that each act can plausibly result in pregnancy.

For my part and as a man I don't consider sexual assault, whether there's penetration or not, to be sex at all.   That's because it isn't; it's an act of violence.   Period.   Where there is no consent, whether spoken or implied, it is not a legitimate act.   And comments like Akin's or "retractions" that don't address the issue at hand are totally unacceptable.   Frankly I don't think saying "I'm sorry" would cut it now, it's way too late for that.

(I can only think of two recent examples where mistakes of huge magnitude resulted in an "I'm sorry" and only one of them was political -- Tony Blair's WMD faux pas. The other was the Maple Leaf ™ listeria scandal.)

If this is what passes for discourse these days in politics, those who are considering public office as a career choice would certainly have to stop to ask, why?   Either you say something totally off base and hope you can get away with it or you speak the truth and are shunned for it.   But on this one, there is a stark choice.   Left or right, either you say "No means no" or you don't believe that.   And if it's the latter, you'd better hope it doesn't happen to your wife, daughter or sister.   Or you.

Harper: Going after Guergis to punish Jaffer?

Of all the arguments I've heard from the Conservative Party regarding the Helena Guergis lawsuit where she is claiming PMS and Co defamed her and dismissed her as a Cabinet minister without cause, this one has to take the cake; that the party can't be sued because it is an "unincorporated association."

The reason why law firms have reconstituted themselves as "limited liability partnerships" and why places of worship have decided to adopt articles of incorporation is so they can have the same status as places of business ending in "Limited" or "Incorporation" or "Corporation" -- the status of a person and thus to limit their liability for private wrongs; specifically, only the assets of the establishment can be seized, not the personal things owned by the proprietors.

If the Conservative Party is unincorporated then it follows some or all of its membership are personally liable.   In this case, it can hardly be argued all of the party's members should be forced to pay up -- that's silly.   But the senior inner cabal that got rid of Guergis on what appears to be specious grounds and / or that she was "guilty by association" because of her marriage to Rafim Jaffer.

I don't know what to make of the allegations against him either before all of this started, or the new allegations made by Team Con that Jaffer engaged in technology transfers to companies in an enemy state, Mainland China.

But my sense is the following.

First, no one should be held responsible for a spouse's or common law partner's actions unless he or she was also part of the same conspiracy.

Second, section 4(3) of the Canada Evidence Act establishes by statue the centuries old spousal privilege -- that communications between a husband or wife cannot be used as evidence in a criminal or civil trial under any circumstance unless one of the parties has waived that right as party of a plea bargain so as to testify against the other or one spouse has been victimized by the other and by logic must testify, whether the wrong was jointly or severally criminal or civil.  (I presume that although the wording is lacking in the present law, the privilege also extends to a two husbands or two wives contract).

If Guergis was aware that her husband, Jaffer, was engaging in clearly criminal conduct, she might be morally obligated to report what can be considered by some to be an act of treason, especially as a minister of the Crown herself.    But legally, she wouldn't have to even if he made such a confession to her in confidence -- and at this stage I don't even think Jaffer has been charged or indicted for anything of the sort.   And for what it's worth, even if she was told such by Jaffer, that doesn't make her part of the act unless she directly abetted it in some way such as offering secure channels to facilitate the transfer.

Many of us have been fired for some reason, even if was a minor or unintentional breach of company rules.   But any normal supervisor would explain the reasons for doing so, in writing.

PMS does not act like a normal person.   Hiding under so-called Crown immunity, he merely invoked the "removal at pleasure" concept to get rid of someone it appears increasingly he simply hated.  .   And a woman, for that matter.    A woman who is a Christian (I believe) married to a Muslim.   This has discrimination written all over it.   I'm not saying that's definitely what it is, that's for a court to decide.   But it's awfully suspicious.   And not just because that firing someone without cause is a frightening concept

Just because you're the country's primus inter pares (first among equals) does not give you a hall pass to do whatever you want.    A Prime Minister does have tools at his or her disposal that many Presidents don't, including invoking posse comitatus (i.e. giving law enforcement powers to the military).    But he or she is subject to the same employment standards expectations that bosses in the private sector are.   That includes that if you fire a minister you can't do so on the grounds of race, ethnicity, religion or sex.    Count the ways.

If the government has proof Jaffer did something that undermined our economy to an irreparable extent, charge him with the crime, not Guergis.    If  Guergis is only guilty of bad judgment by allowing a parliamentary computer to be used for commercial purposes, then she should have been told that up front when dismissed or demoted -- it's not something that merits expulsion from the party.

But if evidence demonstrates this is just a witch hunt to punish a non-Muslim for marrying a Muslim -- especially a PM who claims he's trying to build bridges with Muslims -- then in my opinion PMS is no longer fit to govern and the GG, David L. Johnston (who PMS appointed by the way), should fire him "in the name of the Sovereign."

And as far as the "unincorporated association" argument goes -- come on.   It's easy to identify who would be responsible within that party, and against whom a forfeiture assessment should be applied.   You can probably count them with the digits of both hands.   That is, of course, if.

To what possible end with ...

... the "human life" thing?

Yes, I'm pro-life.   Yes, I have argued here in the past there is a need to open up a debate -- not necessarily on banning the abortion procedure but how far along a pregnancy is before restrictions ought to begin, as well as to have enhanced criminal penalties for assaulting a pregnant woman (which is now the law in the case of the latter).

But a private member's motion to strike up a committee on when a human life begins?   It is my opinion that this is not coming entirely from the mind of the MP in question,  although he readily admitted he wants to have an "honest discussion" about abortion.   Even more amazing, there'll be a second round of discussion on the floor of the House in June!   To the credit of PMS, he said now's not the time to reopen the hornet's nest (although he claims his hands were tied on the tabling of the motion, saying an all-party committee randomly chose which private motions would come up for debate during this session) and he'll be voting against.

That's all well and good.  But it all goes to what is sinister about social conservatism as opposed to conservatism of the progressive kind.    Here's what gets my goat:

1. Most of those of the political class who oppose abortion also oppose any alternatives for women in crisis.   Specifically they oppose any increased social supports to make up for the fact a child is being carried to term.   In fact, they already oppose taking away the social supports that currently exist -- including federal and provincial entitlement payments.   This is beyond comprehension.   I'm not the first to say this, but I have said it before and I'll say it again -- it's not enough to talk about family values, we need to value families.
2. As well, it makes one wonder who the "socons" are appealing to -- is it their constituents (or the ones they prefer to hear from, to be more precise) -- or is it that brand of Christianity that wants to roll back the clock on women's rights, desegregation, fair labour laws and the like?   It's not just the Canadian televangelists (many of whom are even worse than their American cousins in terms of financial hypocrisy); I've been in a few churches as of late where pastors have attitudes out of the paleolithic age.   And I'm talking mega-churches in big cities with a large labour union history which goes to show how narrow minded some of the "little people" can be at times -- whether by choice (pardon the expression) or by being brainwashed.
3. Finally, it's the good old whitewash all over again.   Remember a few years back when an MP tried to reopen the abortion debate by introducing a private members bill (not just a "sense of the House" resolution as is the case here) saying that a person could be charged if he or she attacked a pregnant woman and ended up making a fetus nonviable in the process but somehow the pregnant mother survived.    All pro-choice advocates, and even many conscientious pro-life people like myself saw right through it -- and thankfully the bill was withdrawn in favour of a government motion that dealt with the issue by protecting the right of a pregnant woman herself to be free from assault (which, as I note above, did in fact become law).

Those of us who are pro-life but disassociate ourselves from this kind of a trap have every right to be worried.    Sometimes some of the best ideas for law do come from backbenchers.  Perhaps one of the best known is a law passed during the Mulroney Administration that banned smoking in federal facilities -- even though every single member of the Cabinet voted against.

But an honest debate means exactly that -- discussing an issue that openly discloses what the discussion is all about and not using a proverbial Trojan horse.   We know what they do to our desktops and notebooks.    We certainly don't need them in our statute books or regulations.

Guilty verdicts in Kingston -- a turning point in the war against women?

The struggle for equal rights never ends and must never end.    Recent events in two parts of the world, seemingly disconnected but linked by the common element of who the targets are, are a reminder of this.

Firstly, the guilty verdicts yesterday in Kingston in the so-called "honour killings" of Zainab, Sahar and Geeti Shafia and Rona Mohammad Amir are not only welcome but perhaps finally causing the discussion we should have been having all these years.   I'm not just talking about deliberately killing women because they just want to be themselves; it's that people bring their preconceived notions of what's right and wrong to Canada.   Moreover there seems to be a willingness to completely isolate oneself from the community at large and force one's children born here to act and comply as if it is "the old country."

But what I find even more incredible is that this was not a case of refugees gone bad.   No, one of the convicts, Mohammed Shafia, bought his way into Canada, via the Québec immigrant investor program.    The others, second wife Tooba Yahya  and son Hamed Shafia, managed to get in under suspicious circumstances.   Of course Mr Shafia couldn't bring in both of his wives into Canada since polygamy is illegal here but he came up with a BS story that Ms Yahya was his cousin, and numb-nuts immigration officers overseas didn't run a background check.

I suppose there is a reason why we have to have a business class of immigrants; every province in fact runs a program although Québec's always seems to be the highest profile.   It's because we need those skills and if it means fast-tracking the naturalization process then so be it.   But is it too much to ask some questions beyond the normal questions we'd expect?

And it's not just would-be Canadians.    It happens in long-established communities here as well and in all religious groups.   Sadly, there are going to be more tragedies like this one.   Every province will have its own goals on what it needs to achieve from immigration from all classes but surely we can all agree that leadership starts from the top, and that in particular it's the licensed religious leaders of all faiths who need to take a stand.    Child protection authorities need to be more vigilant as well.    There are far too many false apprehensions which cause nothing but grief on their own, but it's the failure to act even when victims don't want the help but obviously need it that's outrageous.

It's good to hear most Muslims in Canada and their leadership want to stop the cycle of violence.    But it all goes back to where it begins.   If someone wanting to come here to Canada refuses to recognize the equality of women, they should not even bother applying.    If someone already here refuses to recognize equal rights for women and acts on that notion, the full force of the law should be applied.

This leads somewhat awkwardly to what's been going on in a number of places as of late and secular vs religious Jews.    We have all heard about women who have been "ordered" to go to the back of the bus by ultra-orthodox Jews, or the eight year old who was attacked for the dress she was wearing to school and by grown men.    Or even in Montréal a few years back when a women's only exercise studio caved into some radicals who said they wanted the windows tinted because they thought a woman in skin-tight exercise gear was offensive.

Set aside the principle that you should pick on someone your own size -- and gender.   Many of these men have managed to get around mandatory conscription laws for far too long.   They don't even have to subscribe to alternate service, such that existed in most Allied countries during World War II.

It's good to see people fighting back, in small but measurable ways.

The major principle I think we need to get around is that while as a secular society we are very accommodating to all ethnic groups and religions -- consider how boring dining would be if there weren't the choices of food out there, particularly Middle East and South Asian -- there has to be a limit to where we say this is what we are all about.    That there are common values we all hold to.   I'm not saying we have to agree on everything, because then we would not be a democracy any more.   We need to however say that there is a point where we are willing to reasonably accommodate each other but at a certain point we need to have common rules of the road.

Because in this particular case whether we like it or not, religious based "tribunals" of all religions (and we see agitation to allow these alternate forms of arbitration, be it Sharia for Muslims, the Beth Din for Jews, the Curial courts for Catholics, etc.) are almost always stacked against women.   Until relatively recently, even the law here was constructed to be against women.    Women who were married weren't allowed to get their own property until the 1970s.  We forget easily that spousal assault didn't even exist as a crime in Canada until 1983 and the principle of "no means no" wasn't enacted until a decade after that.

I've said this before and I'll say it again -- we need to see this for what it is, a war against women.   There are too many men and sadly even many women too, who openly and enthusiastically support femicide.    Until we all get around to this fact and push back, more will die.   The longer we let this go on, sooner or later we'll get to the point where the blood will be sticking on our hands rather than those of the perpetrators.

To be honest I breathed a sigh of relief when the guilty verdicts came down yesterday.   It's unfortunate however that the four life sentences each of the Montréal Three got are concurrent -- frankly a hundred year sentence is call for, not twenty-five.   Actually, I would have gone even further, invoked  that this was a crime of hate as an aggravating circumstance, and doubled it to two hundred years.

UPDATE (7:46 pm EDT, 0046 GMT 01-31-2012):   Minor edits.

The Cain identity

Yesterday's decision by Herman Cain to drop out of the GOP Presidential stakes (technically, suspending, a legal loophole that allows him to reallocate donations made to him to another candidate or a PAC) really wasn't surprising nor was the timing.    But it was inevitable.    If it was just one woman making sexual harassment complaints it may have raised some eyebrows.   Two, three, four ... there was a problem.   Then a fifth claiming to have had a consentual affair with Cain, game over.    Pretty sad for a man who built an entire pizza chain (Godfather's ™) from the ground up, then was elected by his peers to run the restaurant lobby in DC.

Sexual harassment is, perhaps needless to say, a serious charge.   If made falsely, the women should be charged with perjury.   If true, Cain is lucky just to been able to write a cheque and make it "go away."

The comparisons to Clarence Thomas, however, are perplexing.   That was about a man accused of harassing one woman, Anita Hill, while he was chair of -- of all things -- the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and right at the time when it was arguing in the courts that such harassment amounted to discrimination (which it was eventually successful at so persuading).   Such bad talk at a government agency should have been flagged before Thomas was allowed to sit on any bench, let alone the Supreme Court of the United States.

Of course, judges don't get paid a lot compared to the huge responsibilities they carry, including rendering judgments that could send a person to jail or death row and forcing corporations into bankruptcy.     But a businessman with that kind of influence, who had a great deal of respect from blacks as well as whites, to risk throwing it all away with remarks or conduct that was anything but cute ... would Americans want to trust that kind of man with a button?

It's not his denials, but the way he denied it.   Frankly, paying off someone to drop a lawsuit, even if the payer is innocent, doesn't leave a good impression.   He could have been a serious challenger to President Obama but he let it slip away by not regaining control of the discussion.   With money comes power and, if not exercised properly, arrogance.

His exit probably means that America won't have a discussion about a national sales tax, the only major democracy that doesn't but almost certainly should.

How will DSK beat off this one? ... pardon the expression

No sooner did Dominique Strauss Kahn manage to stave off sexual assault charges in Manhattan than he now faces allegations he has ties to ... a call girl.   In northern France.   For €500 to 1500 -- a night.   (The French newspaper L'Express has much much more in their article published last night -- sorry, it's only in French.   Over 20,000 sent and 10,000 received SMS messages as well.    Even more remarkable -- he had his flings with the call girl while negotiating high stakes bailouts in his role as then IMF chief, including a €25 billion lifeboat to Ireland.

And he thought he wouldn't get caught?   And incredible he was able to fuck a woman not his wife and fuck a once great country not his homeland at the same time -- and not give anything away.   (Or did he fill the spare not just with wild oats but also super secret information that even most financial insiders would give their gold fillings for?   If he did he betrayed a heck of a lot of countries as well.)

I thought American politicians were stupid when it came to their tabs and slots.   But this goes way beyond the foibles we see south of 49 and north of the Rio Grande.    If DSK had any outside chance of still getting the Socialist nod to challenge Sarkozy next year, this will have finished that once and for all.

If you can't track the guns, you can't track the criminals

The Brady Law in the States, which is supposed to ensure felons don't have access to guns (they are supposed to be flagged by a background check), has proven to be a joke, the NYT reports today.   In just one state -- the State of Washington -- nearly 3300 convicts have had their "right to bear arms" that they forfeited, restored.   In one case, a man out of jail for just two months shot dead his girlfriend's lover -- then forced the dead man's fiancée to dump him into a river.     How did he get the gun?   They were in safekeeping through another friend while the guy was doing time in jail; and the judge who paroled the man said he had no choice under state law even though the judge knew the suspect was a ticking time bomb.

Here in Canada, of course, gun ownership is a privilege and not a right.   I know of some people who are perfectly law abiding but would never be allowed to get a gun license because of various mental health issues.    But it raises a question -- with the Cons bent on abolishing the long gun registry, are we about to become the outlaw country that the United States is -- and an increasingly woman hating one, thanks to the mostly white supremacist religious right and the even more non-white hating and misogynist Tea Party (two sides of the same coin)?

Or that Switzerland is?   While some of its very lax gun laws have been somewhat tightened to comply with general policies in the Schengen open border area that it joined in 2008 after much internal resistance (trade and tourism were the deciding factors in finally giving in), the fact is that most domestic violence incidents that result in death are the result of mandatory firearms possession (every male in Switzerland must possess a rifle until they are at least 30, 34 if they have served as officers).   The rate of firearms ownership there is about 50% higher than Canada (per capita) but only half in turn as that in the United States.    Part of the history is a long standing fear of invasion from its "enemies" but since every country that surrounds Switzerland is a fully fledged democracy and all of which are trustworthy enough to have open borders with, it's more an anachronism than anything else -- albeit a lethal one.

However, one of the reasons Switzerland has a higher conviction rate is that all guns, regardless of size, must be registered and provided with a unique ID number.   That makes guns easier to track and to finger the shooter (since missing weapons must also be reported).   It is true that there are quite a few unregistered weapons there, but if you get caught there you will more likely than not forfeit the right to possess a legal weapon.

Some in this country of Canada go to the old canard that we were trying to make criminals out of legal gun owners, and that a lot of unregistered weapons were making it across the border anyway, which is why the registry has to be abolished.   I agree that some of the penalties for non-registry are ridiculous and need to be revisited; but if we're getting rid of a $2 billion tool that police rely on, doesn't getting rid of the bathwater actually make their job more difficult and make the Harper government guilty of dereliction of duty -- not to mention it actually goes against their promise to be tough on crime?

You can't have it both ways.   Either you get tough on crime and increase the penalties for misuse of a firearm or the illegal possession of one, or you relax the rules on both.   Going at cross purposes (getting "tough" on one but easing up on the other) is a recipe for disaster.   The provinces and territories are well within their rights to say, if the feds want to get rid of the registry, they'll maintain their own -- and this I would support provided that they maintain a unified system rather than a "Balkanized" one.  The jurisdictions would also have every right to demand just and timely compensation for what would be another unfunded mandate on top of the one the Cons are creating with their "crime" bill.

Put it this way:   It makes as much sense as having capitalism in a country with a dictatorship -- sooner or later the regime must fall.   It happened in Yugoslavia, it's happening across the Middle East and eventually Mainland China too will rise up against its communist masters and usher in democracy.   I would welcome that day.   But then we'd better be prepared, because if we can't keep our own country safe from lead paint imports from "over there" heaven help us when we let people through with their firearms and rifles, in full view and not merely concealed, because we said it's okay for our own people.

Dems kick back at Tea Party

The Tea Party in the States got a huge slap in the face in yesterday's off-year elections in the States.    Among the biggest ones:

Voters in Ohio rejected by a huge margin a law that effectively placed public servants in a "right to work state" situation.


Maine voters approved same day voting registration, making it a "normal" democracy like Canada (this principle is opposed by Tea Partiers as an "open door to fraud" -- and in this state, the tea-baggers actually ran ads saying that it's a "gay" idea.   Like that will work in a libertarian state).

In Mississippi, voters in the mostly pro-life state slammed down a "personhood" measure so vaguely worded that the morning after pill and the IUD would have been outlawed.   (Voters there, however, did approve tighter voter identification requirements.)


In Arizona, the person responsible for that state's anti-immigration law was recalled.

Most high profile incumbents for local and state office appeared to survive, although in Erie County, New York (which includes Buffalo) the GOP county executive was bounced for a Democratic labour operative.

Hard to say what this means for the Congressional elections next year, but if people's appetites for change were worsened by what the Tea Party was really up to once they got in, it could be a torrent that runs all the way downticket.   People want less government, they just don't want their rights taken away and they want migrants to have a fighting chance.    Common sense tends to win out overall and it's good to see there was plenty of it stateside yesterday.

Quick weekend thoughts (2010-10-02)

Quick whip of two items so let's go:

Good on the Supreme Court of Canada for ruling the Insite clinic in Vancouver does not run afoul of drug control policies; more technically that it does but to deny it a "constitutional exemption" would be a far worse outcome than what the needle exchange clinic provides, safe and sterile injection supplies.   Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, supported by her eight Associates (including PMS appointees Marshall Rothstein and Thomas Cromwell), wrote the unanimous opinion in favour of Insite.    Well acquainted with the terrible existence of the Downtown East Side (having spent a great deal of her law practice there as well as handling drug cases as a bencher during her time in the lower courts), one would think that as a matter of course she would recuse herself from the matter at hand but instead she came out swinging.   The chief magistrate did not focus so much on Charter issues (although there is a bit of discussion there) as she did on the division of powers, something you'd think "Steve" Harper would consider sacrosanct.

Oddly, when the centre opened it was an incredible feat of cooperation between all three levels of government as well as Aboriginals who comprise nearly 20% of the neighbourhood.   It was only a change of government in Ottawa that brought about the impasse.   Nevertheless, wrote McLachlin, the issue is not one of crime.    Many if not most addicts aren't criminals, they are addicts period.   They need treatment to be cured or have their addictions go into remission but until that point comes they need access to a facility like Insite because it is properly regulated, professionally run and the staff there help their patients get referred to facilities that work on the disease.

As it is, health care is a provincial responsibility, and while what goes on  in shooting up drugs is technically illegal (a federal responsibility, criminal law) and that federal law does take precedence, the federal law in question also interferes with the staff's ability to do their job and it is that that is unconstitutional, as is the federal government's decision not to extend Insite's license being based on political and not logical grounds.   Accordingly, McLachlin and Co. granted Insite's request for an injunction and ordered the federal Minister of Health to grant the clinic its license.

While technically the decision only applies to Insite, it's also a big victory for other needle exchange programs, such as "The Van" here in Hamilton.    Surely we need to fight the real criminal elements in the drug trade (the kingpins and their immediate minions) but many addicts, and I have come across quite a few, do not deserve to be branded as criminals.   They need help.   It's time they got that help without fear.

****

The other quick note is the pending CETA -- the proposed Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with the European Union.    We have gone through eight rounds of talks and it looks more like there will be a treaty ready for a final vote, maybe in a matter of weeks.   Unlike many of my progressive colleagues I actually support free trade with Europe, especially if it includes a labour mobility agreement.    This would go far beyond anything in NAFTA which only guarantees a quota of worker visas but not much else.    If there can be harmonization in product safety and environment standards so much the better.   I am troubled however by the almost complete lack of silence on the issue.

The Canada-US agreements, which was later extended to Mexico with NAFTA, by contrast had a very vigorous public debate in all three countries.    It was that debate that led to the Protocols on the environment and labour rights, as well as the ongoing call in all three countries among civil society groups for a reopening of Chapter XI (the "investor state dispute settlement" provision).

But nothing about this.   No debate.  Why is this?    Increasing our economic ties to Europe can primarily be a good thing because it will mean we will not be so much bound to the States as we are.   We can't keep our eggs in one basket and over the long run the European frame of mind has proved quite stable compared to the American brand.   Surely however, if we're going to get into something this big, there should be a full debate -- at the grassroots, in the media and certainly in the federal legislature.    Even "take note" debates in the provincial and territorial legislative assemblies would be more gratifying than the black hole of silence -- but there too there seems to be silence as the subnational governments are actually included in the talks, unprecedented with the other agreements the EU have negotiated which have been with national governments only.

Some civil society groups have raised a stink (including the usual "suspects" the Council of Canadians which I do not really respect and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives which I do), but there is more debate about the Tar Sands and the proposed XL extension to the Keystone pipeline system, than this.    Doesn't make sense.

The only fair way to settle this is to put forward the draft document, whatever it is right now, in the public domain.    And to allow MPs and Senators to vote on the final treaty in free votes and not party line ones.   If we're going to become de facto if not de jure a part of the EU, then we need to discuss openly and honestly the impact of being part of or a partner with a supranational institution -- one that has promoted peace and democracy for over a half century to be sure but has created an endless trail of irritants even amongst its most ardent supporters.

Unfunded mandate galore, courtesy the Fed Cons

No surprise that the Cons reintroduced, yet again, their "omnibus" crime bill.   And no surprise, again, that the Cons refused to say how much it will cost to implement -- much less if there will be any commensurate transfers to the provinces and territories to offset that cost.   Likely not.   Which means the second order of government will be stuck with an "unfunded mandate."

Certainly there is much to be respected in the bill.   Many of the measures I can support -- especially in particular two:   One is cracking down on the black market in immigration to fly in sex trade workers under the radar.   There should be no compassion given to such evil exploiters, in fact nothing less than Supermax is acceptable for them.

The other is giving individuals the right to sue foreign corporations and even governments for sponsoring terrorism or organized crime.   I do agree with this as well; although many states will, as they do with similar laws in the US and other countries, claim "state immunity" from such suits.  For proof, look at the intrepid people in Rome and their repeated lawsuits at Radio Herod (um, Radio Vatican) for radiation outputs from their antennas anywhere from two to four times the legal limit in the EU -- radio broadcasts regularly interfere with other radio stations as well as telephone calls; rates of leukemia are six times in the state of Lazio (which includes Rome) than should be expected.   The Vatican has always responded by denying such radiation and even if such existed that the land on which the antennas are on are extraterritorial Vatican property and therefore outside Italian jurisdiction.    If Italians can't collect on communications fraud, imagine our trying to collect on sponsoring terrorism.   Exactly.

But the main point for me is the unfunded mandate, or partially funded mandate if one will.    I first wrote about this a little over a year ago.   One only has to look to health care -- it was only ever supposed to be a 50-50 cost share between the feds and the lower governments; it went down to 18 cents on the fed side but only went back up to 25 when the provinces finally mustered the will to revolt.    With this financial issue still in view especially as the first wave of the Baby Boom started collecting their Old Age Security this year, it continues to be a bane for the provinces not just in terms of who's going to pay for long term care as well as a much needed national strategy for prescription drugs, but also other new shared cost programs.    There is a general understanding that provinces can opt out of any new programs of this nature (although it's really been only Québec that has done so, and two attempts to put this principle of opt out for any province, for any program other than pensions, into the Constitution have failed) but there is also a huge backlash if the province doesn't put it its own similar program.

But on the issue of crime, there shouldn't be a dispute.    We've always had a unified criminal code but left it to the provinces to enforce that law (after consulting with the provinces on the text of the provisions, naturally).   But since provinces and territories house prisoners sentenced up to and including two years less one day it should follow that they have the adequate resources to do so.   Heck, even tax points would be acceptable to most.   But there doesn't seem to be an indication there will be movement even on this.   Originally, the Cons were saying it would cost an extra $2 billion per year.   The provinces have said $5 billion -- and this was before the "omnibus" bill introduced today, which combines nine bills in consideration before the election.   My guess would be more like $8 to 10 billion per year, ongoing.

Another thing -- what if a province has an alternate sentencing program at the provincial or community level that has proven to reduce the rate of recidivism and the feds say, sorry, can't do that anymore?   For a man who long believed in the principle that local government closer to the people should best decide these things PMS has done a complete 180 and imposed a one size fits all approach, the exact opposite of what he has long believed in.

Does this mean less half way houses in favour of larger and naturally even more violent prisons?   Maybe PMS should spend a weekend at the Maze -- um sorry, that was closed and is now being torn down as part of the peace process in Northern Ireland.   How about enforcing some of the laws that Parliament passed under Liberal governments but have never been proclaimed into force.   One was a two strikes law passed over Chrétien's objections by most backbenchers of all parties -- a mandatory seven to life sentence for a second conviction for a listed violent crime.   This was a simple one page law that could deal a serious blow to some issues that PMS thinks needs several hundred pages of clauses to resolve.   But things are never simple in politics.

Of course it's easy to be tough on crime.   It's even easier not to pay for enforcing the law.   That's why so many states in the US are going bankrupt, as is the federal government -- and why the courts have had to step in to enforce consent decrees like SCOTUS did earlier this year in California.    Are we headed that route?    If PMS wants to get tough, he'd better roll out the dough as well.   The second level of government will wait only so long before they take matters into their own hands.   Hard to imagine a constitutional crisis over something like this, but it could happen.