This weekend in most of North America and the Caribbean, the clocks are going ahead one hour -- three weeks earlier than last year. They will go back the first weekend in November, one week later. This was something done by the US Congress in 2005 to promote energy conservation and since most other countries in North America are so much tied in trade to the US they pretty much didn't have a choice but to follow. Only problem is, unless you've updated your computer's operating system to download a patch, it will still "think" we're on standard time this weekend and won't change the time until the first weekend of April. This isn't so much an issue as big as Y2K but it could be a heck of a nuisance.
So just a suggestion: If you don't download your updates automatically, and you live somewhere where the change will take place this weekend, take a few seconds to go to Microsoft or Apple and download the time patch. It'll save a lot of aggravation.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, March 6, 2007
Monday, March 5, 2007
I'm entitled to my entitlements: Kanye West edition
Remember right after Hurricane Katrina, how the networks put on a benefit concert -- and in the presence of Mike Myers, Kanye West said that Bush didn't care about blacks? A totally unscripted moment but something that had a lot of truth to it.
Very interesting then that Mr. West decides to order a meal from Wales and have it shipped all the way to New York. The normal price of the meal is about £8.97. The price for West, including delivery (for a party of four): £2000.
Hey, Kanye, your brothers and sisters in New Orleans are still suffering. How about using that money to help them instead? Especially nice of you to waste your time ordering from a restaurant that has a delivery radius of 3 miles? While those in the strike zone still have to depend on food stamps (um, food debit cards)?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Very interesting then that Mr. West decides to order a meal from Wales and have it shipped all the way to New York. The normal price of the meal is about £8.97. The price for West, including delivery (for a party of four): £2000.
Hey, Kanye, your brothers and sisters in New Orleans are still suffering. How about using that money to help them instead? Especially nice of you to waste your time ordering from a restaurant that has a delivery radius of 3 miles? While those in the strike zone still have to depend on food stamps (um, food debit cards)?
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, March 4, 2007
The snark strikes again
Why is Ann Coulter even allowed to remain in the Republican Party? Saying that John Edwards is a "faggot" is not only slander, it's beneath even most conservatives' definition of civil discourse.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
Mass firing of prosecutors fails sniff test
Could this be the issue that finally gets the Democrats' fire lighted?
Back on December 7, a fair number of federal prosecutors were fired on supposed "performance issues." It now turns out that the dismissals may have been politically motivated -- i.e. the White House wanted them gone because they weren't "aggressive enough" in enforcing Bush Administration policies.
There's no question it is the duty of the executive to ensure laws are enforced. But it is another matter entirely when one picks and chooses which laws are going to be followed (such as Bush's record number of "signing statements" where he signs a law but indicates he won't execute them because they're unconstitutional and bind the executive in a manner the legislature is not supposed to).
One can appreciate a firing if a prosecutor is not performing "up to grade." But aren't there well established public service standards for that? One would kind of expect a district attorney or his or her assistants to exercise due diligence in trying to figure out what cases are worth taking to court, which ones stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. He or she shouldn't just get a ham sandwich indictment because he or she is told to. Moreover, DAs are rarely fired in the middle of an executive's term -- they serve at pleasure, of course, but usually changes are made when a new executive comes into office.
The White House readily admits they should have warned lawmakers that a large number of prosecutors were being given their pink slips and the optics in hindsight look bad. Tell me something I don't know. Now the Democrats are demanding hearings and will sub poena the fired DAs to hear their side of the story. I was under the impression that only in rare cases would the executive directly get involved in prosecuting people -- that for the most part district attorneys would be given a certain amount of free reign. Guess that's another truth that's too inconvenient for the President who would be King.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Back on December 7, a fair number of federal prosecutors were fired on supposed "performance issues." It now turns out that the dismissals may have been politically motivated -- i.e. the White House wanted them gone because they weren't "aggressive enough" in enforcing Bush Administration policies.
There's no question it is the duty of the executive to ensure laws are enforced. But it is another matter entirely when one picks and chooses which laws are going to be followed (such as Bush's record number of "signing statements" where he signs a law but indicates he won't execute them because they're unconstitutional and bind the executive in a manner the legislature is not supposed to).
One can appreciate a firing if a prosecutor is not performing "up to grade." But aren't there well established public service standards for that? One would kind of expect a district attorney or his or her assistants to exercise due diligence in trying to figure out what cases are worth taking to court, which ones stand at least a reasonable chance of getting a conviction. He or she shouldn't just get a ham sandwich indictment because he or she is told to. Moreover, DAs are rarely fired in the middle of an executive's term -- they serve at pleasure, of course, but usually changes are made when a new executive comes into office.
The White House readily admits they should have warned lawmakers that a large number of prosecutors were being given their pink slips and the optics in hindsight look bad. Tell me something I don't know. Now the Democrats are demanding hearings and will sub poena the fired DAs to hear their side of the story. I was under the impression that only in rare cases would the executive directly get involved in prosecuting people -- that for the most part district attorneys would be given a certain amount of free reign. Guess that's another truth that's too inconvenient for the President who would be King.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, March 2, 2007
It's not censorship if the right demands it
The claims this week that James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici made regarding burial boxes that allegedly contain the bones of Jesus of Nazareth and Mary Magdalene has caused quite the fuss. Frankly, I think it's bogus. I agree with the vast majority of Christians who say that there simply is no way these could be what they say it is. Anyone remember the hoax surrounding the James Ossuary? The box was authentic (according to the Israeli government) but the inscription on it was a forgery.
But let's set aside for a minute what this piles onto -- the longstanding allegation that Jesus and Magdalene were married. There's no doubt they had a special relationship, perhaps to the point of being best friends. But married? The historical record just doesn't bear that out. If they were, the authentic four Gospel writers would have pointed that out.
My beef isn't the ridiculousness of the claim, the same one made in The Da Vinci Code. Rather, it's the attempts by some to get the upcoming documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus banned from the airwaves. Yup, the so-called Media Research Center and the Catholic League are up to their old tricks again. In fact, Bill Donohue of the CL actually said: “It’s time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism.”
Get a life! Most people are going to watch the show and then just dismiss it with a laugh. Because that's all Cameron and Jacobovici deserve to get for financing a project based on a very tenuous theory. Especially considering they now claim the James Ossuary is the "missing link" that proves Jesus wasn't executed.
Should we expect more in terms of standards from the Discovery Channel? Probably. But they've put out a lot of other crazy theories out there, which are now deemed to be not so crazy after all. And of course they've the highly rated MythBusters which puts a whole bunch of urban legends to the test.
So here's my suggestion. Donohue: Get a life, sir. Seriously. You're entitled to your opinions, but the First Amendment protects the free marketplace of ideas, not matter how ridiculous. Free speech doesn't only apply when people agree with you but when they disagree as well. The people should decide whether this theory is real or not, and using their common sense they probably will. But don't you dare say the documentary should be banned just because you hate Hollywood.
And to the Discovery Channel: Air the documentary as is, then let the MythBusters team figure out whether this is a bogus story as well. Given the proven record on the first ossuary, it shouldn't be that hard for M5 to bust the Jesus and Magdalene story out of the Dead Sea, once and for all. Then maybe we can finally put the "King of the World" out of his wretched business, as he so richly deserves to be, and get some reputable people to dig through antiquities and put them through the scientific method.
Will I be watching next week? Sure. My dad's still in critical condition and I need the laugh, desperately.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
But let's set aside for a minute what this piles onto -- the longstanding allegation that Jesus and Magdalene were married. There's no doubt they had a special relationship, perhaps to the point of being best friends. But married? The historical record just doesn't bear that out. If they were, the authentic four Gospel writers would have pointed that out.
My beef isn't the ridiculousness of the claim, the same one made in The Da Vinci Code. Rather, it's the attempts by some to get the upcoming documentary The Lost Tomb of Jesus banned from the airwaves. Yup, the so-called Media Research Center and the Catholic League are up to their old tricks again. In fact, Bill Donohue of the CL actually said: “It’s time the Discovery Channel discovered ethics and stopped with the sensationalism.”
Get a life! Most people are going to watch the show and then just dismiss it with a laugh. Because that's all Cameron and Jacobovici deserve to get for financing a project based on a very tenuous theory. Especially considering they now claim the James Ossuary is the "missing link" that proves Jesus wasn't executed.
Should we expect more in terms of standards from the Discovery Channel? Probably. But they've put out a lot of other crazy theories out there, which are now deemed to be not so crazy after all. And of course they've the highly rated MythBusters which puts a whole bunch of urban legends to the test.
So here's my suggestion. Donohue: Get a life, sir. Seriously. You're entitled to your opinions, but the First Amendment protects the free marketplace of ideas, not matter how ridiculous. Free speech doesn't only apply when people agree with you but when they disagree as well. The people should decide whether this theory is real or not, and using their common sense they probably will. But don't you dare say the documentary should be banned just because you hate Hollywood.
And to the Discovery Channel: Air the documentary as is, then let the MythBusters team figure out whether this is a bogus story as well. Given the proven record on the first ossuary, it shouldn't be that hard for M5 to bust the Jesus and Magdalene story out of the Dead Sea, once and for all. Then maybe we can finally put the "King of the World" out of his wretched business, as he so richly deserves to be, and get some reputable people to dig through antiquities and put them through the scientific method.
Will I be watching next week? Sure. My dad's still in critical condition and I need the laugh, desperately.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
When someone wants to surrender, you arrest them on the spot
For the last couple of years or so, the Hamilton Police Service has had a "most wanted" suspect of the month and has asked anyone who has information to call the authorities. The capture rate has been quite high.
Questions are being asked though, about a rather foul turn of events. A man called Corey Rogers was "marked" by the cops for a savage beating in 2004 in which a man was left a quadripelegic. Rogers' alleged accomplice, a woman, was quickly arrested but Corey remained at large. Upon hearing his name in the local press Rogers called 911, offering to turn himself in.
The procedure is supposed to be the police go to the address attached to the phone number and attempt to make the arrest themselves. Instead, the dispatcher told Rogers to turn himself in. He never showed up. One week later two teenagers were killed outside a Barton Street bar. Two others were stabbed.
Guess who the police arrested? Rogers.
The families of the dead victims are crying foul and saying they are just as guilty of the murder as Rogers is -- if they had done their job, their sons would still be alive.
I wouldn't go that far, but someone has to take responsibility for this. Would the FBI just allow one of their Ten Most Wanted to get away if one of them called in and offered to surrender? This isn't a left or right issue. We all pay taxes to ensure public protection and no one was protected in this instance.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Questions are being asked though, about a rather foul turn of events. A man called Corey Rogers was "marked" by the cops for a savage beating in 2004 in which a man was left a quadripelegic. Rogers' alleged accomplice, a woman, was quickly arrested but Corey remained at large. Upon hearing his name in the local press Rogers called 911, offering to turn himself in.
The procedure is supposed to be the police go to the address attached to the phone number and attempt to make the arrest themselves. Instead, the dispatcher told Rogers to turn himself in. He never showed up. One week later two teenagers were killed outside a Barton Street bar. Two others were stabbed.
Guess who the police arrested? Rogers.
The families of the dead victims are crying foul and saying they are just as guilty of the murder as Rogers is -- if they had done their job, their sons would still be alive.
I wouldn't go that far, but someone has to take responsibility for this. Would the FBI just allow one of their Ten Most Wanted to get away if one of them called in and offered to surrender? This isn't a left or right issue. We all pay taxes to ensure public protection and no one was protected in this instance.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Caledonia plus 1 year
One year ago today, the Battle of Douglas Creek began. The occupation (or "reclamation" depending on whose side one is on) continues and tensions in Caledonia remain as tense as ever. There are a few thoughts I have about this:
1) There's too much ill will on both sides. I have long felt that the 28 outstanding land claims of the elected council, which covers most of the Haldimand Tract, should go to mediation or arbitration. It's time to settle this once and for all; whether it's with money, land or a combination of both.
2) We need to know clearly who speaks for each side. No sooner does one try to figure this out than yet another constituency crops up claiming they weren't consulted or they file yet another spurious lawsuit -- not just against the government but against rival factions in the Iroquois community.
3) There must be ways found to allow Six Nations to become more self-sufficient. One of these, I would think, is to develop the land they already have. There is some commercial development there, but the current reserve is literally surrounded by some of the most productive farmland in Canada -- and when one drives on the reserve one would be hard pressed to see anywhere where a shovel of sod has been turned. Seems to me like an opportunity that isn't being exploited.
The issue of native employment also needs addressing. It's not as bad at Six Nations as it may be on other native reserves but there's still a problem. So does the issue of potable water and just trying to be part of society when society wants to marginalize those who were there first.
4) Finally, one has to recognize the issue of urban sprawl. There is a "greenbelt" that surrounds much of the GTA and Hamilton, but it's worth pointing out that Haldimand County is directly south of the limit of this protected area. As population growth continues, there are concerns that people will just leapfrog from one side of the greenbelt to the other. This is certainly a concern at the northern end of the region, where the population of Barrie is expected to triple in the next 25 years.
Down here, one can therefore understand in that light why there is so much agitation and why some feel they have to take back what they think belongs to them before the "white people" move in. Well, unfortunately, the white people have been there for decades and they will continue to move in. Caledonia is already a flash point and one can very well expect Hagersville and Jarvis to be next.
Frankly, I don't know what the solution is. Having outsiders from the OPP doing three days tours of duty from as far away as Hastings or Rainy River certainly isn't.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
1) There's too much ill will on both sides. I have long felt that the 28 outstanding land claims of the elected council, which covers most of the Haldimand Tract, should go to mediation or arbitration. It's time to settle this once and for all; whether it's with money, land or a combination of both.
2) We need to know clearly who speaks for each side. No sooner does one try to figure this out than yet another constituency crops up claiming they weren't consulted or they file yet another spurious lawsuit -- not just against the government but against rival factions in the Iroquois community.
3) There must be ways found to allow Six Nations to become more self-sufficient. One of these, I would think, is to develop the land they already have. There is some commercial development there, but the current reserve is literally surrounded by some of the most productive farmland in Canada -- and when one drives on the reserve one would be hard pressed to see anywhere where a shovel of sod has been turned. Seems to me like an opportunity that isn't being exploited.
The issue of native employment also needs addressing. It's not as bad at Six Nations as it may be on other native reserves but there's still a problem. So does the issue of potable water and just trying to be part of society when society wants to marginalize those who were there first.
4) Finally, one has to recognize the issue of urban sprawl. There is a "greenbelt" that surrounds much of the GTA and Hamilton, but it's worth pointing out that Haldimand County is directly south of the limit of this protected area. As population growth continues, there are concerns that people will just leapfrog from one side of the greenbelt to the other. This is certainly a concern at the northern end of the region, where the population of Barrie is expected to triple in the next 25 years.
Down here, one can therefore understand in that light why there is so much agitation and why some feel they have to take back what they think belongs to them before the "white people" move in. Well, unfortunately, the white people have been there for decades and they will continue to move in. Caledonia is already a flash point and one can very well expect Hagersville and Jarvis to be next.
Frankly, I don't know what the solution is. Having outsiders from the OPP doing three days tours of duty from as far away as Hastings or Rainy River certainly isn't.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
No reauthorization
The House of Commons voted tonight to kill the two provisions of the Anti-Terror law that were set to sunset on Thursday without authorization to extend -- detention without warrant for 72 hours and investigative hearings. The vote was 159-124. Interesting that twelve Liberals either voted with PMS or chose to abstain. Also interesting that Bob Rae, currently not in Parliament, was urging reauthorization while Michael Ignatieff who was once strongly in favour of even more draconian measures to deal with terror threats voted against.
The provisions may have expired and in a way I'm glad they did, but there is still a very real threat out there. It would be prudent on the part of PMS not to suggest the opposition parties support terrorism -- instead, I would urge that some new way to address imminent dangers be passed that would both protect Canadians and withstand a Charter challenge.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
The provisions may have expired and in a way I'm glad they did, but there is still a very real threat out there. It would be prudent on the part of PMS not to suggest the opposition parties support terrorism -- instead, I would urge that some new way to address imminent dangers be passed that would both protect Canadians and withstand a Charter challenge.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Update on my father
I have some positive news to report today about my father's condition. After being in a coma for over a week, he was taken off the respirator today and is awake and responding to the medical staff as well as to his family. He's by no means out of the woods but when one considers he was near death ten days ago we are all very heartened.
It's with that in mind that I have something to get off my chest ... about medicine and faith.
A number of years ago, when my late mother was dealing with all sorts of problems related to mental illness (it was ultimately diagnosed as manic depression), I felt so helpless that I called a crisis line -- which just happened to be run by the folks at the evangelical group 100 Huntley Street. For a Catholic to be taking this step was a daring one but I figured what the heck. I guess I was on hold for about two or three minutes. When there was a pick-up, I laid out the situation. The very first question they asked me was, "Has your mother been prescribed medication?" And right after that, "Is she taking them?" It was only when I said yes to both (unfortunately, she was on the wrong kind of medication which was causing her relapse) that they then offered a prayer.
Now that was something I wasn't expecting, especially from a group that readily supports the "Health and Wealth" gospel. But it was refreshing to hear. Because while God may be the helper of the helpless, He can't be everywhere at once and helping everyone. He relies on people to help other people. And at the very heart of the matter is the fact that one must recognize there is a problem that must be dealt with.
It just makes me sick to see televangelists saying one doesn't need a doctor, just hand over 10 percent of the gross and God will increase that a hundred fold and / or provide the healing. Nope ... doesn't work like that. God can't be bought and can't be put to the test.
Benny Hinn, the king of the mouth shooters, once said on TV that a grieving family should tell the paramedics not to take away a dead body but to leave it in front of the television for 24 hours just in case the dead person woke up; another time he actually said that while on a joint crusade with Reinhard Bonnke somewhere in Africa, they raised someone from the dead. (No videotape proving that has ever been found or presented.)
It still amazes me that I nearly sold my soul to Oral Roberts, and later my Dad (during my parents' divorce) nearly shilled out to Robert Tilton.
Yes, prayer is important. But in a situation like this, it's best to leave it to the professionals ... and right now Dad's in the best possible hands. The fact he's at a faith-based Catholic hospital is not in my mind irrelevant -- it's an important tool. I shudder to think that a decade ago Mike Harris wanted to close St. Joseph's in Hamilton. The public revolt in town was so great -- from Catholics and non-Catholics alike -- that not only was the hospital saved, it was also given the money for a major expansion. I think the reaction has a lot to do with the fact that over half the kids born in Hamilton were born at that one hospital -- that's more than the other four hospitals combined -- as well as the care has always been first rate. (Not to deny the work done at the civic hospitals, since I have friends who work there -- it just seems that if people want to get cared for they'd prefer St. Joe's if a bed is available.)
Making faith and medicine work together is not a contradiction; they go hand in hand. If people realized that, there wouldn't be any faith healers. And for what it's worth, I'd rather put my faith in a physician than a freak. That being said, my father still needs your prayers. There's a long road ahead.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
It's with that in mind that I have something to get off my chest ... about medicine and faith.
A number of years ago, when my late mother was dealing with all sorts of problems related to mental illness (it was ultimately diagnosed as manic depression), I felt so helpless that I called a crisis line -- which just happened to be run by the folks at the evangelical group 100 Huntley Street. For a Catholic to be taking this step was a daring one but I figured what the heck. I guess I was on hold for about two or three minutes. When there was a pick-up, I laid out the situation. The very first question they asked me was, "Has your mother been prescribed medication?" And right after that, "Is she taking them?" It was only when I said yes to both (unfortunately, she was on the wrong kind of medication which was causing her relapse) that they then offered a prayer.
Now that was something I wasn't expecting, especially from a group that readily supports the "Health and Wealth" gospel. But it was refreshing to hear. Because while God may be the helper of the helpless, He can't be everywhere at once and helping everyone. He relies on people to help other people. And at the very heart of the matter is the fact that one must recognize there is a problem that must be dealt with.
It just makes me sick to see televangelists saying one doesn't need a doctor, just hand over 10 percent of the gross and God will increase that a hundred fold and / or provide the healing. Nope ... doesn't work like that. God can't be bought and can't be put to the test.
Benny Hinn, the king of the mouth shooters, once said on TV that a grieving family should tell the paramedics not to take away a dead body but to leave it in front of the television for 24 hours just in case the dead person woke up; another time he actually said that while on a joint crusade with Reinhard Bonnke somewhere in Africa, they raised someone from the dead. (No videotape proving that has ever been found or presented.)
It still amazes me that I nearly sold my soul to Oral Roberts, and later my Dad (during my parents' divorce) nearly shilled out to Robert Tilton.
Yes, prayer is important. But in a situation like this, it's best to leave it to the professionals ... and right now Dad's in the best possible hands. The fact he's at a faith-based Catholic hospital is not in my mind irrelevant -- it's an important tool. I shudder to think that a decade ago Mike Harris wanted to close St. Joseph's in Hamilton. The public revolt in town was so great -- from Catholics and non-Catholics alike -- that not only was the hospital saved, it was also given the money for a major expansion. I think the reaction has a lot to do with the fact that over half the kids born in Hamilton were born at that one hospital -- that's more than the other four hospitals combined -- as well as the care has always been first rate. (Not to deny the work done at the civic hospitals, since I have friends who work there -- it just seems that if people want to get cared for they'd prefer St. Joe's if a bed is available.)
Making faith and medicine work together is not a contradiction; they go hand in hand. If people realized that, there wouldn't be any faith healers. And for what it's worth, I'd rather put my faith in a physician than a freak. That being said, my father still needs your prayers. There's a long road ahead.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Girl, 16, breaks slots in Macau
The city of Macau, which like Hong Kong is part of China but has an autonomous government (and wide-ranging freedoms which do not exist on the Mainland), is trying to explain itself after a 16 year old girl from HK won $100,000 US at the slot machines at one of the city's many casinos. Seems she was allowed to keep the money because of a loophole in the law: She wasn't supposed to be allowed into the casino since she's under 18, but the law only regards admission to the facilities -- not actually playing the machines. However, the young women's mother has been banned from the city's casinos for allowing her daughter to go on the escapade.
Far be it from me to complain about the vice of gambling, because I'll admit to the yen although I'm not compulsive about it. Matter of fact, years ago before Ontario put in an age limit, I won a 50-1 longshot at a racetrack -- I was only 12 at the time and I got paid off without any questions whatsoever.
But this goes to the issue of parenting. What mother in her right mind would give her daughter money for the specific purpose of wasting it? Sure, it paid off in this case, but what if it got swallowed up by the machine? $12 doesn't exactly go that far in either of the autonomous territories, after all. And in an age where casinos are popping up all over the place, Macau -- or for that matter Niagara Falls -- isn't exactly a family friendly place anymore.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Far be it from me to complain about the vice of gambling, because I'll admit to the yen although I'm not compulsive about it. Matter of fact, years ago before Ontario put in an age limit, I won a 50-1 longshot at a racetrack -- I was only 12 at the time and I got paid off without any questions whatsoever.
But this goes to the issue of parenting. What mother in her right mind would give her daughter money for the specific purpose of wasting it? Sure, it paid off in this case, but what if it got swallowed up by the machine? $12 doesn't exactly go that far in either of the autonomous territories, after all. And in an age where casinos are popping up all over the place, Macau -- or for that matter Niagara Falls -- isn't exactly a family friendly place anymore.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, February 23, 2007
No more security certificates
A great day for civil rights in Canada, as the country's high court unanimously struck down the concept of "security certificates," an anti-terrorism tool dating 29 years, all the way back to the Trudeau era. Writing for the 9-0 court, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin ruled that the writs
The idea that a non-citizen can be kicked out of the country based on secret evidence that only prosecutors and judges know about is insidious to say the least. The defendant only gets a heavily redacted summary and even then faces an uphill battle to clear his or her name. It's as if the decision has already been made. It has been used against some pretty undesirable people, such as Ernst Zundel who last week got five years in a German court for his anti-Semitic writings; but in that particular case it's not as if we didn't know the allegations, his works are a matter of public record.
But what if the name is right but the suspect is wrong? What if the top-secret information came from a country that enthusiastically supports torture like most Middle East states and even, to a certain extent, the current American regime? What if the evidence is just plain wrong, period?
Other countries, like the UK, have special advocates which have security clearances but are allowed to ensure the intelligence is up to snuff. This is a role analogously served in Canada by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which oversees our spy operations but only for internal operations, not matters that make it to the courts. Perhaps it is time to expand SIRC's role so they can take on this advocacy role. Or a separate advocate's office can be set up, just as there is a Children's Advocate in some provinces for family law cases.
What's noteworthy is that all nine judges voted to strike down the certificates, including PMS' judge on the court, Marshall Rothstein. This fact alone tells me that the Supreme Court (including those members who normally side with the cops) is worried at the direction the Harper administration may be going in terms of law and order. Parliament has been given a year to fix the defects in the law and come up with something better; but in the meantime one must wonder whether the lower courts which are the workhorse of the judicial system are going to be stacked with police-friendly judges. And of course, there's probably going to be an election in the meantime which could prove as indecisive as the last two (and which in turn could throw the whole issue upside down, again).
For now, however, a very important victory for fair play. The courts have done what they were supposed to do in this case -- make sure that a deportation is based on the facts and that a defendant has the right to dispute those facts.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
- abrogates the principles of fundamental justice;
- constitutes arbitrary detention, and
- violates habeas corpus.
The idea that a non-citizen can be kicked out of the country based on secret evidence that only prosecutors and judges know about is insidious to say the least. The defendant only gets a heavily redacted summary and even then faces an uphill battle to clear his or her name. It's as if the decision has already been made. It has been used against some pretty undesirable people, such as Ernst Zundel who last week got five years in a German court for his anti-Semitic writings; but in that particular case it's not as if we didn't know the allegations, his works are a matter of public record.
But what if the name is right but the suspect is wrong? What if the top-secret information came from a country that enthusiastically supports torture like most Middle East states and even, to a certain extent, the current American regime? What if the evidence is just plain wrong, period?
Other countries, like the UK, have special advocates which have security clearances but are allowed to ensure the intelligence is up to snuff. This is a role analogously served in Canada by the Security Intelligence Review Committee, which oversees our spy operations but only for internal operations, not matters that make it to the courts. Perhaps it is time to expand SIRC's role so they can take on this advocacy role. Or a separate advocate's office can be set up, just as there is a Children's Advocate in some provinces for family law cases.
What's noteworthy is that all nine judges voted to strike down the certificates, including PMS' judge on the court, Marshall Rothstein. This fact alone tells me that the Supreme Court (including those members who normally side with the cops) is worried at the direction the Harper administration may be going in terms of law and order. Parliament has been given a year to fix the defects in the law and come up with something better; but in the meantime one must wonder whether the lower courts which are the workhorse of the judicial system are going to be stacked with police-friendly judges. And of course, there's probably going to be an election in the meantime which could prove as indecisive as the last two (and which in turn could throw the whole issue upside down, again).
For now, however, a very important victory for fair play. The courts have done what they were supposed to do in this case -- make sure that a deportation is based on the facts and that a defendant has the right to dispute those facts.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
A low blow from Harper
It had been my wish not to blog during my father's health crisis, which at this writing is still not resolved. However, something happened today that compelled me to break my silence. Stephen Harper found a very clever as well as deplorable way to change the subject.
Two of the provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act are set to expire next week. One deals with detention without warrant for 72 hours. The other deals with the ability to question witnesses under oath and behind closed doors. It seems the Liberals, which was originally opposed to extending the very provisions they enacted are now divided on the issue. And so, on the heels of the Air India inquiry being up in the air because of the government's refusal to declassify key documents, documents from a terrorist act that took place 22 years ago, Harper turned the tables on the Liberals by saying that one of the Liberal MPs' father-in-law, a Sikh, was being questioned by the Mounties on the Air India bombing.
Specifically, the Vancouver Sun reported today that the said father-in-law of Navdeep Singh Bains, one Darshan Singh Saini, told the RCMP that he met a man who later shot a key witness against one of the known conspirators in the bombings. Harper essentially accused the Liberals of trying to impede the investigation because without the law that is set to expire, the cops won't be able to do an in camera briefing of any witnesses in the case. One of those witnesses, oddly enough, is Saini.
What was the original question, one might ask? Well, the Liberals wanted to know why the police are being allowed on the committees that select judges -- something that doesn't happen anywhere in the free world, as far as I know. Not even in the States, except for the requisite background checks.
It's bad enough that Harper has jeopardized an investigation that already was going nowhere after two of the key suspects were acquitted last year. It's even worse to insinuate that Saini may know more than he's letting on. What really angers me, however, is that this is a terrible abuse of Parliamentary privilege. It's a well established principle that a legislator should be able to speak his or her mind on the floor or in committee without fear of reprisal or threat of legal action. But it's also a matter of principle the executive branch never comments on matters that are before the courts or a commission of inquiry, or are the matter of a pending police investigation. To breach this is to violate the independence of the judiciary, a fundamental principle of democracy.
One should not be allowed to hide behind the shield of privilege in this case. Canadians deserve answers in the worst act of terrorism other than 9/11. There has to be some way to debrief witnesses without the draconian provisions of a law that is more about fighting other forms of domestic terrorism, such as the operations of biker gangs. But to presume someone guilty before proof of innocence and accusing an MP of being guilty by association even when he has completely renounced terrorism (i.e. the radical movement fighting for an independent Khalistan) is beyond the pale.
I'm not expecting Harper to apologize. He doesn't for anything. I would hope, though, he retracts his remarks from the record -- and declassifies all documents immediately so that further interrogations aren't required, and Justice John Major (né the Supreme Court of Canada) can finish his job. Canadians can't wait anymore for answers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Two of the provisions of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism Act are set to expire next week. One deals with detention without warrant for 72 hours. The other deals with the ability to question witnesses under oath and behind closed doors. It seems the Liberals, which was originally opposed to extending the very provisions they enacted are now divided on the issue. And so, on the heels of the Air India inquiry being up in the air because of the government's refusal to declassify key documents, documents from a terrorist act that took place 22 years ago, Harper turned the tables on the Liberals by saying that one of the Liberal MPs' father-in-law, a Sikh, was being questioned by the Mounties on the Air India bombing.
Specifically, the Vancouver Sun reported today that the said father-in-law of Navdeep Singh Bains, one Darshan Singh Saini, told the RCMP that he met a man who later shot a key witness against one of the known conspirators in the bombings. Harper essentially accused the Liberals of trying to impede the investigation because without the law that is set to expire, the cops won't be able to do an in camera briefing of any witnesses in the case. One of those witnesses, oddly enough, is Saini.
What was the original question, one might ask? Well, the Liberals wanted to know why the police are being allowed on the committees that select judges -- something that doesn't happen anywhere in the free world, as far as I know. Not even in the States, except for the requisite background checks.
It's bad enough that Harper has jeopardized an investigation that already was going nowhere after two of the key suspects were acquitted last year. It's even worse to insinuate that Saini may know more than he's letting on. What really angers me, however, is that this is a terrible abuse of Parliamentary privilege. It's a well established principle that a legislator should be able to speak his or her mind on the floor or in committee without fear of reprisal or threat of legal action. But it's also a matter of principle the executive branch never comments on matters that are before the courts or a commission of inquiry, or are the matter of a pending police investigation. To breach this is to violate the independence of the judiciary, a fundamental principle of democracy.
One should not be allowed to hide behind the shield of privilege in this case. Canadians deserve answers in the worst act of terrorism other than 9/11. There has to be some way to debrief witnesses without the draconian provisions of a law that is more about fighting other forms of domestic terrorism, such as the operations of biker gangs. But to presume someone guilty before proof of innocence and accusing an MP of being guilty by association even when he has completely renounced terrorism (i.e. the radical movement fighting for an independent Khalistan) is beyond the pale.
I'm not expecting Harper to apologize. He doesn't for anything. I would hope, though, he retracts his remarks from the record -- and declassifies all documents immediately so that further interrogations aren't required, and Justice John Major (né the Supreme Court of Canada) can finish his job. Canadians can't wait anymore for answers.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Friday, February 16, 2007
Blog, interrupted
My father had to suddenly go to the hospital last night, related to a long-standing health issue. While they have stabilized him he is still in critical condition. As a result, I will have to suspend my blogging. Hope to be back at this soon. So say a prayer for him, please.
Thanks for your understanding.
Thanks for your understanding.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stacking the courts un-Canadian
Stephen Harper admitted yesterday he wants to "stack the courts" so as to ensure judges implement his law and order agenda.
That's all well and good, but there are ways to do this other than by tilting a process that has served this country well for decades, a system that ensures only the most well qualified lawyers are called to the bench. One may argue that judges are "too soft," but the reality is that for some crimes the sentences are too lenient and the bandwidth between minimum and maximum sentences too wide.
For example, one can introduce sentencing guidelines that would comply with the Charter's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment while at the same time ensuring the general consensus there should be both a deterrent against and retribution for crimes committed against society. There's no need to try to "stack the courts." If one did this, as the Cons are proposing, then there would be inconsistency as to sentencing. It would be the luck of the draw whether a suspect was assigned to a court with a "liberal" or a "conservative" judge. Appeals courts, quite rightly, would have to call Harper's bluff and say similar circumstances should call for similar sentences.
Another thing the feds can do is to make sure law enforcement officials have the proper funds to actually do their job. While there is a uniform criminal law in Canada, enforcement is done by the provinces and territories and it's local taxpayers that bear the brunt whenever police ask for salary increases. We can certainly talk about fixing the "fiscal imbalance" at all levels, including ensuring local authorities can raise funds other than by property taxes and user fees. (Consider many US cities which lower their property tax burden, by putting an emphasis on traffic tickets for out-of-townees as well as a hotel tax -- neither of which are available for Canadian municipalities.)
But we can start by having targeted transfers from the federal level to hire more cops so they can look after all crime and not just attempt to make "priorities" as to what is a serious crime and what isn't; as well as ensuring the funds will be there to deal with what would be an increased prison population. We need to be careful here, too: Our incarceration rate is about a third of the American one and many US states are teetering on financial ruin because of overcrowded joints.
Finally, it would be nice to see the government try to address what underlies the perceived problem, rather than just throw a brick at it. That applies to all parties, by the way. Saying one will either be "tough on crime" or "tough on the causes of crime" is insufficient -- we must do both.
Courts are supposed to be independent arbitrators, not political footballs. Things were fine with the old selection process and no matter who is in power judges should be free to peruse and pursue the independence for which they were selected. To interfere with that is an American value, not a Canadian one. It's time for Harper to decide whether he is a Canadian or if he wants Canada to be the 51st through 60th states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
That's all well and good, but there are ways to do this other than by tilting a process that has served this country well for decades, a system that ensures only the most well qualified lawyers are called to the bench. One may argue that judges are "too soft," but the reality is that for some crimes the sentences are too lenient and the bandwidth between minimum and maximum sentences too wide.
For example, one can introduce sentencing guidelines that would comply with the Charter's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment while at the same time ensuring the general consensus there should be both a deterrent against and retribution for crimes committed against society. There's no need to try to "stack the courts." If one did this, as the Cons are proposing, then there would be inconsistency as to sentencing. It would be the luck of the draw whether a suspect was assigned to a court with a "liberal" or a "conservative" judge. Appeals courts, quite rightly, would have to call Harper's bluff and say similar circumstances should call for similar sentences.
Another thing the feds can do is to make sure law enforcement officials have the proper funds to actually do their job. While there is a uniform criminal law in Canada, enforcement is done by the provinces and territories and it's local taxpayers that bear the brunt whenever police ask for salary increases. We can certainly talk about fixing the "fiscal imbalance" at all levels, including ensuring local authorities can raise funds other than by property taxes and user fees. (Consider many US cities which lower their property tax burden, by putting an emphasis on traffic tickets for out-of-townees as well as a hotel tax -- neither of which are available for Canadian municipalities.)
But we can start by having targeted transfers from the federal level to hire more cops so they can look after all crime and not just attempt to make "priorities" as to what is a serious crime and what isn't; as well as ensuring the funds will be there to deal with what would be an increased prison population. We need to be careful here, too: Our incarceration rate is about a third of the American one and many US states are teetering on financial ruin because of overcrowded joints.
Finally, it would be nice to see the government try to address what underlies the perceived problem, rather than just throw a brick at it. That applies to all parties, by the way. Saying one will either be "tough on crime" or "tough on the causes of crime" is insufficient -- we must do both.
Courts are supposed to be independent arbitrators, not political footballs. Things were fine with the old selection process and no matter who is in power judges should be free to peruse and pursue the independence for which they were selected. To interfere with that is an American value, not a Canadian one. It's time for Harper to decide whether he is a Canadian or if he wants Canada to be the 51st through 60th states.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
John Cleese on extremism
Whilst I take a day off and shovel all this snow through gritted teeth, I also did a bit of surfing over at YouTube and found some gems from the other side of the pond -- those nitfy announcements from the UK called Party Election Broadcasts, or PEBs. Political advertising of the kind we know in Canada and the US is illegal over there; but all parties, including those on the fringe, are allowed to produce between one and five PEBs, depending on their standing in Parliament. (Labour and Conservative normally have five each, the Lib Dems four.)
They run between three and five minutes nowadays (they used to be ten) and outshine anything Karl Rove or James Carville could ever come up with. And so, I offer for your consideration this Party Election Broadcast (PEB) from the 1987 British elections ... starring John Cleese speaking for what was then called the Social Democratic Party / Liberal Alliance. The Alliance collapsed soon after the election that year and later re-emerged as the Liberal Democrats we know today; but Cleese's thoughts about extremism on the left as well as the right ring true twenty years later; and can be adapted for almost any democracy.
Note that towards the end Cleese makes an argument for proportional representation; something I fully support for Canadian elections. Ironically, PR could allow some real extremists into coalitions, but having the vote reflect the wishes of the people might not be such a bad thing. We don't need repeats of situations where someone won the popular vote but lost the election on seat count, which happened most recently in New Brunswick last year.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
They run between three and five minutes nowadays (they used to be ten) and outshine anything Karl Rove or James Carville could ever come up with. And so, I offer for your consideration this Party Election Broadcast (PEB) from the 1987 British elections ... starring John Cleese speaking for what was then called the Social Democratic Party / Liberal Alliance. The Alliance collapsed soon after the election that year and later re-emerged as the Liberal Democrats we know today; but Cleese's thoughts about extremism on the left as well as the right ring true twenty years later; and can be adapted for almost any democracy.
Note that towards the end Cleese makes an argument for proportional representation; something I fully support for Canadian elections. Ironically, PR could allow some real extremists into coalitions, but having the vote reflect the wishes of the people might not be such a bad thing. We don't need repeats of situations where someone won the popular vote but lost the election on seat count, which happened most recently in New Brunswick last year.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)