There are many Canadians who love the monarchy and many who don’t or don’t even know the queen of England is still sovereign over our nation. I think England is called a constitutional monarchy, and Canada is a sovereign nation, independent…yet…kinda not. I’ve been told that having this figurehead protects our democracy, that it limits the power of the prime minister, which is not as all sweeping as a president’s but I don’t know. I get rankled that someone from some other country, who is called the “Queen of England and the commonwealth, defender of the faith,” etc. is really the true ruler of our country.

Should she, or  her commander on Canadian soil, ever exercise true power over Canada we would see people suddenly not that for the monarchy. There would be wholesale rebellion if England told us what to do. So, why do we have a queen or king? I don’t like paying lip service to this ruler (even nominal) of another nation.

On top of that, monarchies are really a thing of the past, of the feudal era, and in most cases we’re past that style of culture. Sure, there are various cultures that still have kings and queens, some of them like Britain’s queen (the king of Thailand for example), but to what purpose? A democratic (or communist country) has other ways of governing.Go ahead and call yourself king, grand potentate, god or emperor if you rule a tyranny or dictatorship because there, the will of the people is definitely suppressed.

People were made king or queen in past eras because they killed everyone else, had the strongest arm or the biggest army. Then their descendants, who raked in the tithes and taxes and gifts, got to rule, or someone overthrew them. So who is royal? Anyone who gets to the top. There isn’t different blood that runs through their veins, they are not dropped onto the planet by some god, and they are not born more perfect, intelligent and wise than you or me. It is only by dint of their privileged status and money that they get to be humanitarians, travel in style, hobnob with the creme de la creme and get the best of everything. With that upbringing I too could be a goodwill ambassador for whatever I chose.

I do not object to being rich and I do not object to people rising to the top but I think they should earn it or inherit from their family. Sure that’s happened to the monarchs of various kingdoms but right of inheritance doesn’t really give you the means to be a good ruler. And gosh, everyone gets to vote in their rulers in the commonwealth countries.

So, although I think Canada should stop knuckling under to an outmoded form of government where the queen and god get to rule, I guess it’s up to each country to decide if they want to keep their monarchs. Canada should stand on its own two feet. We should vote on it and hey, maybe I can be governor-general sometime and stage a coup against the prime minister. I wonder what would happen then. Would the armed forces (as they’re sworn to do) follow such a coup, and would the Queen step in? It would make it interesting and probably get our constitution re-evaluated. Ah, for the colonial days. Time to get rid of monarchies the world over.

For starters, here is the suspicious ‘order-in-council’ which amended the public works act within the jurisdiction of Ontario: Click here. It was passed June 21 and expired June 28.

Police

More to come.

grrrrrr....

OK.
So, I won’t go anywhere near my personal opinions of the skanky-assed shock-jock supremacist that is called Ann Coulter… oh wait.
I just did.
I despise everything that she represents and says.  And I will probably get my Canadian Libertarian ass chewed off for saying the above… be told about how stupid I am or how wrong I am for thinking she is a waste of space and energy on this planet.
Whatever: bring it on.  If you agree with her then your racist views will speak for yourself.
Don’t expect me to engage you in debate over her asinine relevance (or is that sagging irrelevance) on the political scene while you attempt to convince me of how she is the voice of the average right-winged conservative American (because if you are… then I DO NOT want to even acknowledge your presence in my life).

Now, this posting isn’t about her political views.  Nope. Not at all.

Rather this is about the recent waste of time the media has given her (thanks to the genius of her PR machine in creating a media orgy) over a so-called incident that occurred at the University of Ottawa and her accusations of Canadians/Canada.

She is now apparently a victim of a ‘hate-crime’ in Canada, according to Ms. Coulter.  She blames the University, who sent her a letter explaining the laws of the land and the freedoms and limitations of Free Speech, especially when they borderline no, ARE blatantly inciting and condoning hatred and in some cases, possibly violence… which in Canada is a criminal offence.  She was warned to weigh her words with “respect and civility in mind” especially while on University grounds … which has now been translated into: We Canadians are fascist. Oh wait.  We Canadians also ought to consider ourselves as ‘lucky’ the US allows us to exist on the same continent and just hope to her Christian god that the US doesn’t roll over one night and ‘crush’ Canada in its sleep.

Let me make something clear:  Under section 319 of the Canadian charter for Freedom of Expression (Constitutional Law of Canada), it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith. Gee – it would appear as though this law was written especially for her since her views, politics and propaganda are nothing BUT based on hatred for anything that isn’t her.  They are based on fear, hatred and racism.  You simply cannot espouse hatred and then hide behind the guise of “freedom of speech.”

Ms. Coulter’s politics and propaganda also violates the “Hate Speech” laws of our country which includes any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation. In law, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it may incite violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group. The law may identify a protected individual or a protected group by race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, or other characteristic.  It is an indictable offense under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Now I already can hear all or a large majority of the Conservative blogger body yelling: FREEDOM OF SPEECH IS NOT HATE SPEECH YOU FASCIST CANADIAN!!!

Let me explain why I believe she got more than she deserved with a warning from François Houle, the vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, of the Laws of the land in which she finds herself.  Just proves to me her arrogance and ignorance that North America DOES NOT EQUAL United States.

Actually… I think this article from Ozlem Sensoy,  assistant professor in the faculty of education at Simon Fraser University, says exactly what I feel about this situation.  For those of you who might not have the time or are too lazy or arrogant to try to see the other side of this issue, let me paraphrase the article in chunks that might make it digestable:

“What people who launch the charge of “free speech” (and other charges such as “anti-democratic”, “censorship” and “lighten up, it’s just entertainment”) fail to acknowledge and understand is the social concept of power.

Sexism, racism, ableism, heterosexism, classism and anti-semitism are not about individual acts of discrimination (what some conservative commentator might have specifically said to offend someone or some group). These terms do not primarily refer to acts of discrimination (expressions of prejudices like Coulter’s). They refer to systems of privilege that “normalize” a particular way of talking about and thinking about particular groups of people in society.

That is why Coulter’s speech is not just “free” (i. e. bias-free, objectively sent out into the atmosphere). The effects of her speech when launched into public space are not simply situational. They are another series of burps in the historical and existing framework that has normalized a particular way of thinking about Muslims, gays and lesbians, and other marginalized groups.

That is why scholars of race relations and critical feminists would argue that so-called reverse-racism or reverse-sexism do not exist. Because of this difference, individual speech acts have different consequences in the social world.

(…)

The “isms” words (racism, sexism, anti-semitism) refer to power relationships that are historic and embedded, and these relationships do not flip back and forth. The same groups that have historically held power in the U.S. and Canada continue to do so.

From this framework, we can see how free speech is a slippery problem. Ironically, it seems to surface when there is a need to stifle speech that challenges social power (which is what the U of Ottawa students were doing, challenging the inequitable social power relations that Coulter’s “speech” upheld).

In a parallel way, while “left wing” voices might not receive the kind of caution that Coulter did from Francois Houle, the vice-president academic and provost of the University of Ottawa, to be aware of Canada’s hate speech laws, it doesn’t matter: The effect of Coulter’s speech is not the same as the effect of marginalized speech.

(…)

There is also a type of context-appropriate speech. For example, the morning baby-talk I know many of you use when chatting with your kitty-witty or puppy-wuppy would probably be inappropriate at a job interview or with friends at the pub.

The point is, we live with these types of speech limitations every day, limitations governed by social norms. When the “free speech” card is played (by those whose speech aligns with power structures, like Coulter), it is a defensive response to their perspectives and power being challenged. The “free speech” discourse protects power and privilege by acting as a shield against such challenges. If you dare challenge free speech as a normal social value, you dare challenge the founding ideals of Western-style democracy.

Perhaps we should have a discussion about the degree to which we experience and foster “free speech” in the West.

Whether it’s humorous “jokes” about Muslims taking flying carpets instead of airplanes, or “real” remarks calling for the deaths of abortion doctors and condemning gays and lesbians, all speech is not free, neutral and deserving of utterance. You can’t just say whatever the hell you want.

University of Ottawa students embody the spirit of student activism. Thank you, students.

There are limitations.
In everything.
Including democracy.
That’s life.
Simply because a VERY large majority of Canadians disagree with Ms. Coulter and are exercising their right to protest (and personally, in this case, this was a very smart and intelligent protest)… does not make Canadians fascist. And receiving fair warning to educate yourself on the laws of the land… does not equate to human rights violations – especially comparing Canada to those of Iran, Nazi Germany and Cuba.

Now if she did actually take the time to truly educate herself properly, she would have clearly understood that the Provost had no authority to “criminally prosecute” her, or that the letter had been intended to advise her, for her own sake, of what the Charter actually said and where she might be vulnerable given her penchant for gay-baiting and Muslim-baiting. (Coulter told newsmax.com that: “The Provost of the u. of Ottawa is threatening to criminally prosecute me for my speech there on Monday–before I’ve even set foot in the country!”)

Her accusations are that of a spoiled rich ignorant bitch who didn’t get the adoration she wanted on Canadian soil, and needed to figure out a way to make money while in Canada.  I resent the fact that the very fabric of which she promotes, she also accuses and demean those who use it against her.  Oh and one more thing:  The UofO students simply said to Ms. Coulter: No thanks. Take it back where you came from. It’s not welcome here. It isn’t that the students, or the university, were “afraid” of her right to free speech. They just weren’t that into her.

Read here for more of her insults and archiac politics in London, ON where she insulted a Muslim 17 yrs old political science teen to take a camel to school…
BITCH!

——————————————————————————–

Free Speech Lecture

Welcome and thank you for coming out, this discussion is about the limits of Free Speech and the first limit is I get to speak and no one else does. (dramatic pause) No, that was a joke. I hope to start things off by giving context to our discussion then open the floor up to for questions and comments.

Let’s start by asking what is free speech and why is there such a reverence for it. On the surface free speech is the ability of one to transmit their ideas to the public. Free speech does not, in a modern ‘western’ context, refer to private speech between individuals. However what qualifies as ‘ideas’ can be everything from political ideology, commercial advertisements, comedy…etc. It is in the transmission of ideas, and often the more controversial questioning of ideas, that lie at the heart at what we see as the value of free speech. John Stuart Mill said “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race [for] If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”[1]. We live in a culture of constant change, where stagnation is seen as detrimental to progress and only through the improvement of thought that society can evolve. Radio Free Thinker, as a skeptic show, is predicated on the idea that dogma should be challenged everywhere and that only through this free exchange of ideas that a healthy society can exist.

That said; it is also dogma (hmmm…) that free speech is the first among rights and should be complete and absolute. Therefore we shall focus on the need to limit speech, where those limits might be and how such limits might be enforced while preserving the spirit of and medicinal nature of free speech.

In the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms, we find section 2b which states that a fundamental freedom is that of thought, belief, opinion and expression. However, section 1 states that such rights have “reasonable limits” and can be limited when “demonstrably justified” to protect a “free and democratic society”. This arrangement or priorities shows a fundamental difference between Canada and the USA, in the US constitution (if not in practice) the individual is supreme and as such the only function of government is to protect the individual’s liberty. Canada, by contrast, has always been a more ‘communal’ nation and this “one for all and all for one” Victorian spirit can be seen in our founding anthem “Peace, order and good governance”. The legal opinion in Canada is that only through a healthy society can an individual prosper; turning the US idea on its head.

No, this is not a discussion about the merits of communalism vs. individualism, nor about the historical developments of nation states. We are concerned with free speech here and now; in the context of what is. There are limitations on free speech and these are manifest in three areas – legal, economic and social. In Canada, freedom of expression can be limited provided it is justifiable, that said limitation of proportional and ‘rationally connected to their aims’. For those who have taken any Canadian law, you will know this as the “Oaks test” after the case of the same name.

What is “Justifiable”? The principle here is that, given a specific manifestation of speech, the harm done to a ‘free and democratic society’ would be greater if the freedom were allowed unlimited than if it were limited. A classic example of this is violent pornography. The courts acknowledge that pornography is a protected form of expression however it also upholds legislation the limits violent porn because, in the opinion of the justices, there is a ‘reasonable apprehension of harm’.

What is ‘rationally connected to their aims’? This simply means that if I wanted to prevent the sale of violent porn, any limitation of freedom must be connected to that aim. I could not revoke the drivers licence of those who sell violent porn – it may be punitive but has no rational connection to the aim of ‘preventing the sale of violent porn’.

What is proportional? This means that any freedom must be limited as minimally as possible to achieve its state aims. So a ban on the sale of all porn, so as to prevent the sale of violent porn, is a larger restriction of freedom than is needed to prevent the stated aim when a simple ban on violent porn would be sufficient.

Now this limitation is important when it comes to Canada’s hate speech laws. Canada is a multicultural nation; as such ‘identity’ groups are a fundamental aspect of our cultural landscape. Even those, notably libertarians and Marxists, who do not believe in identity groups, are forced to acknowledge that both victims and victimisers believe in these groups and are willing to use them to perpetrate hatred and violence. Now, in the case of holocaust denial, overt racism or homophobic violence, it is a general consensus that these forms of speech should be limited.

However, there are issues with this; such as at what point does my discussion of genetic distinctions between races cross over into racism? There are other issues, where do we draw the line about what is hate speech? Does Leviticus constitute hate speech? Do comments about the Israeli occupation of Palestine constitute anti-Semitism? The courts have given four exceptions or guides to distinguish ‘hate’ from non-hate speech even when such comments might be construed as hate. These defences are ‘it’s true’, ‘good faith opinion on a religious matter’, ‘in the public interest’ and ‘good faith attempts to point out hate speech’. So Leviticus is off the hook because we have a, in my opinion a destructive, special place for religion…comments on Israel MAY be okay IF true…

Okay, so that’s the law. There are two other ways that our freedom of speech is limited. Economically; this means that someone like Jim Shaw (who own Shaw Cable and just purchase CanWest/Global) who has both money and access can have more speech than I have. However, this leads into the difference between positive and negative rights. Legally, and ideologically, our society tend to side with negative rights over positive rights. This means a right is simply the absence of hindrance…i.e. no one is preventing me from running an ad on CBC. Positive rights means the presence of opportunity…i.e. I am given free time on CBC to speak. For those who are aware of the resent Supreme Court decision in the US will know this a huge topic south of boarder (and maybe one that should be bigger here as well).

The other limitation is that preached by people like Foucault. This is the ability for society, or ourselves, to censor what is obsessively legal speech. A great example of this was during the Olympics. There was reported that the head of RCMP security for the Olympics said that there would be “free speech” zones, and then the VPD said people could demonstrate anywhere but there would be designated areas for “safe”[2] protesting. Other talk about prosecution for ‘anti-Olympic’ posters and unprecedented enhanced security in the GVRD lead to a form of social self-censorship; where a great number of people just did not want to chance a run-in with the authorities. As a radio personality, I acknowledge that there have been a number of times I have thought twice about saying a thing for fear of legal or social outrage that may hinder Radio Free Thinker or cause personal suffering.

This social censorship also related to our earlier discussion of positive rights. Currently there is a legal debate going on about the loss of ‘club status’ of an anti-abortion group at the University of Victoria, of another club at the University of Western Ontario that has been ‘decertified’ for its apparent pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic stance, depending on who you are speaking to. The UVic case is not so much  a question of free speech, for the club is allowed to organize if it wish, but a question of equality because is being treated differently than other ‘groups’ by being denied club status.

The heart of this case shines a light also on where or how we define hate speech. Opponents to the club point out that its (or similar groups) posters can be graphically obscene and the fundamental stance of the group is to imply the women who have or even advocate abortion are “bad” people who should be shunned. Pro-choice groups point out that anti-abortionist groups have violently harassed and harmed those who advocate, seek and/or provide abortions. The anti-abortion club claims its posters are tasteful; that it has not directly been involved in harassment and that it merely represents a difference of opinion on an issue that they should have much freedom to express as those who are pro-choice.

One last thought before we open the floor. Do universities, and by extension its students and faculty, have a great ‘right’ to free speech than those ‘off campus’? Do universities have a special and protected role in society to be a ‘bastion’ of speech irrespective of its content, impact or perspective provided it is done to forward academic education/research/growth?

ON that note…I will open the floor to thoughts, questions and comments….

[2] ^{Staff Sgt. Mike Cote, “Olympic protest zones don’t exist VPD says” (http://www.straight.com/article-281369/vancouver/olympic-protest-zones-dont-exist-vpd-says)}

——————————————————————————–

Free Speech Lecture

Welcome and thank you for coming out, this discussion is about the limits of Free Speech and the first limit is I get to speak and no one else does. (dramatic pause) No, that was a joke. I hope to start things off by giving context to our discussion then open the floor up to for questions and comments.

Let’s start by asking what is free speech and why is there such a reverence for it. On the surface free speech is the ability of one to transmit their ideas to the public. Free speech does not, in a modern ‘western’ context, refer to private speech between individuals. However what qualifies as ‘ideas’ can be everything from political ideology, commercial advertisements, comedy…etc. It is in the transmission of ideas, and often the more controversial questioning of ideas, that lie at the heart at what we see as the value of free speech. John Stuart Mill said “The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race [for] If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error”[1]. We live in a culture of constant change, where stagnation is seen as detrimental to progress and only through the improvement of thought that society can evolve. Radio Free Thinker, as a skeptic show, is predicated on the idea that dogma should be challenged everywhere and that only through this free exchange of ideas that a healthy society can exist.

That said; it is also dogma (hmmm…) that free speech is the first among rights and should be complete and absolute. Therefore we shall focus on the need to limit speech, where those limits might be and how such limits might be enforced while preserving the spirit of and medicinal nature of free speech.

In the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms, we find section 2b which states that a fundamental freedom is that of thought, belief, opinion and expression. However, section 1 states that such rights have “reasonable limits” and can be limited when “demonstrably justified” to protect a “free and democratic society”. This arrangement or priorities shows a fundamental difference between Canada and the USA, in the US constitution (if not in practice) the individual is supreme and as such the only function of government is to protect the individual’s liberty. Canada, by contrast, has always been a more ‘communal’ nation and this “one for all and all for one” Victorian spirit can be seen in our founding anthem “Peace, order and good governance”. The legal opinion in Canada is that only through a healthy society can an individual prosper; turning the US idea on its head.

No, this is not a discussion about the merits of communalism vs. individualism, nor about the historical developments of nation states. We are concerned with free speech here and now; in the context of what is. There are limitations on free speech and these are manifest in three areas – legal, economic and social. In Canada, freedom of expression can be limited provided it is justifiable, that said limitation of proportional and ‘rationally connected to their aims’. For those who have taken any Canadian law, you will know this as the “Oaks test” after the case of the same name.

What is “Justifiable”? The principle here is that, given a specific manifestation of speech, the harm done to a ‘free and democratic society’ would be greater if the freedom were allowed unlimited than if it were limited. A classic example of this is violent pornography. The courts acknowledge that pornography is a protected form of expression however it also upholds legislation the limits violent porn because, in the opinion of the justices, there is a ‘reasonable apprehension of harm’.

What is ‘rationally connected to their aims’? This simply means that if I wanted to prevent the sale of violent porn, any limitation of freedom must be connected to that aim. I could not revoke the drivers licence of those who sell violent porn – it may be punitive but has no rational connection to the aim of ‘preventing the sale of violent porn’.

What is proportional? This means that any freedom must be limited as minimally as possible to achieve its state aims. So a ban on the sale of all porn, so as to prevent the sale of violent porn, is a larger restriction of freedom than is needed to prevent the stated aim when a simple ban on violent porn would be sufficient.

Now this limitation is important when it comes to Canada’s hate speech laws. Canada is a multicultural nation; as such ‘identity’ groups are a fundamental aspect of our cultural landscape. Even those, notably libertarians and Marxists, who do not believe in identity groups, are forced to acknowledge that both victims and victimisers believe in these groups and are willing to use them to perpetrate hatred and violence. Now, in the case of holocaust denial, overt racism or homophobic violence, it is a general consensus that these forms of speech should be limited.

However, there are issues with this; such as at what point does my discussion of genetic distinctions between races cross over into racism? There are other issues, where do we draw the line about what is hate speech? Does Leviticus constitute hate speech? Do comments about the Israeli occupation of Palestine constitute anti-Semitism? The courts have given four exceptions or guides to distinguish ‘hate’ from non-hate speech even when such comments might be construed as hate. These defences are ‘it’s true’, ‘good faith opinion on a religious matter’, ‘in the public interest’ and ‘good faith attempts to point out hate speech’. So Leviticus is off the hook because we have a, in my opinion a destructive, special place for religion…comments on Israel MAY be okay IF true…

Okay, so that’s the law. There are two other ways that our freedom of speech is limited. Economically; this means that someone like Jim Shaw (who own Shaw Cable and just purchase CanWest/Global) who has both money and access can have more speech than I have. However, this leads into the difference between positive and negative rights. Legally, and ideologically, our society tend to side with negative rights over positive rights. This means a right is simply the absence of hindrance…i.e. no one is preventing me from running an ad on CBC. Positive rights means the presence of opportunity…i.e. I am given free time on CBC to speak. For those who are aware of the resent Supreme Court decision in the US will know this a huge topic south of boarder (and maybe one that should be bigger here as well).

The other limitation is that preached by people like Foucault. This is the ability for society, or ourselves, to censor what is obsessively legal speech. A great example of this was during the Olympics. There was reported that the head of RCMP security for the Olympics said that there would be “free speech” zones, and then the VPD said people could demonstrate anywhere but there would be designated areas for “safe”[2] protesting. Other talk about prosecution for ‘anti-Olympic’ posters and unprecedented enhanced security in the GVRD lead to a form of social self-censorship; where a great number of people just did not want to chance a run-in with the authorities. As a radio personality, I acknowledge that there have been a number of times I have thought twice about saying a thing for fear of legal or social outrage that may hinder Radio Free Thinker or cause personal suffering.

This social censorship also related to our earlier discussion of positive rights. Currently there is a legal debate going on about the loss of ‘club status’ of an anti-abortion group at the University of Victoria, of another club at the University of Western Ontario that has been ‘decertified’ for its apparent pro-Palestinian or anti-Semitic stance, depending on who you are speaking to. The UVic case is not so much  a question of free speech, for the club is allowed to organize if it wish, but a question of equality because is being treated differently than other ‘groups’ by being denied club status.

The heart of this case shines a light also on where or how we define hate speech. Opponents to the club point out that its (or similar groups) posters can be graphically obscene and the fundamental stance of the group is to imply the women who have or even advocate abortion are “bad” people who should be shunned. Pro-choice groups point out that anti-abortionist groups have violently harassed and harmed those who advocate, seek and/or provide abortions. The anti-abortion club claims its posters are tasteful; that it has not directly been involved in harassment and that it merely represents a difference of opinion on an issue that they should have much freedom to express as those who are pro-choice.

One last thought before we open the floor. Do universities, and by extension its students and faculty, have a great ‘right’ to free speech than those ‘off campus’? Do universities have a special and protected role in society to be a ‘bastion’ of speech irrespective of its content, impact or perspective provided it is done to forward academic education/research/growth?

ON that note…I will open the floor to thoughts, questions and comments….

[2] ^{Staff Sgt. Mike Cote, “Olympic protest zones don’t exist VPD says” (http://www.straight.com/article-281369/vancouver/olympic-protest-zones-dont-exist-vpd-says)}

The conference was Trudeau’s response to the Quebec referendum for separation that took place the previous spring. The ‘No’ vote prevailed (at 59%) and the Prime Minister indicated he would revitalize efforts to transfer control of Canada’s constitution from Britain. Despite the breakdown in talks, the country does end up with a made-in-Canada constitution about a year and a half later.

You have the right to your own mental order.  You need not be ashamed of anything you think or any way you think.

Performing, advocating or threatening harm to others are the only crimes.

Harm is deliberate inequality.

In the last few days I became strongly concerned about a political issue.  I cared so strongly about that issue that I contacted the leaders of Canada’s federal political parties, including the Canadian Prime Minister and my provincial political parties, including the Premier of my province.  I cared so much about this issue I revealed personal information regarding something that is not understood by society, those entrusted with its care or the leaders I contacted.

There is a large community that does understand what I revealed.  I spoke out to protect them.  I spoke out for a group that was executed by the Nazis to no one’s protest.  No movies are made about their disappearance.  They were among the first to die.

I want the rights of these people protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms–the Canadian Constitution.  Nothing less.

I don’t think there is a leader among us up to it.

We have to help ourselves.

I take comfort in the words of Aristotle: “Evil destroys even itself” and “All virtue is summed up in dealing justly.”

President Obama and Governor General Jean of Canada meet before Harper meeting

I missed this picture in U.S. media from President Obama’s Canadian trip.  HE is the elected President of the United States of America, with his finger on The Button, the son of a Black African student with distant kin descended from chattel slaves.  SHE is Michaelle Jean, appointed “Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada” by Her Majesty The Queen of Canada and Her Other Realms and Territories, Elizabeth II, on the advice of HM’s Canadian Prime Minister of the day.  Mme. Jean is a Haitian immigrant to Quebec, her first language is French (or Haitian Creole), and she is descended from chattel slaves.  In the name of The Queen, she holds all constitutional power in Canada, though according to custom, she too governs in Privy Council, acting only on the advice of HM’s Canadian PM of the day … normally.  She’s married to a White Frenchman, and they are raising an adopted little Haitian girl.

Some photo op, eh?!  Every Black kid on Earth should get a copy free!

Canadian media covered their meeting in greater detail than you’ll find elsewhere: here, for now (link will break).

Did you ever read the Canadian constitution?  It’s a very curious document.  It describes a political system that bears very little resemblance to the one we think we have.

An immigrant from Utar Pradesh reading the constitution of Canada would learn about a country ruled by an all powerful monarch counselled by a popular assembly of the common people.  A country with a very primitive form of democracy and scarcely a check or balance.

Such is the British parliamentary system.  A system that evolves slowly with time and with foundations made of traditions instead of words.

The idea that the leader of the party that wins the most votes in the election becomes Prime Minister and he forms a government out of elected members of his own party is not in the constitution.  You can ctrl+f the constitution all you want, you won’t find the words “political party” in there.

Political parties were a sort of spontaneous  formations – kind of like the alliances in the TV show Survivor – that were never intended by the designers of the game, but became a fundamental part of it nonetheless.  The original intent was that any combination of elected (white males who owned land in the original version) members of parliament could get together to form, or support, a government.

That is the government’s only claim to legitimacy vis-à-vis the governor and the Queen: it has the support of a majority of the elected members of the House.  According to the letter of the law – if you are to read the actual words of the constitution – the Governor General, and ultimately the Queen, can make her cat Minister of Finance.

In 1999 the British kicked the hereditary lords out of their own house, the House of Lords, ending the centuries old right of blue bloods to oversee the Empires affairs without so much as a vigorous debate. Such is the beauty of the British political system: it can turn revolutions into incredibly boring affairs.

Real power slowly but inevitably is transfered from the Throne, to the Parliament, to the democratically elected members of the House.  Without any drama or bloodshed.  That is how Britain can have one of the most democratic regimes in the world without having to get rid of it’s hereditary head of state.  It is how it can have one of the oldest and most stable political systems in the world, without even having a written constitution.

Change is slow, but it moves in one direction: toward more democracy and accountability.

It works because all the players: the Queen, the governors, the MPs, the Senators, the Lords, the Judges, etc… agree on a few unwritten rules: the House of Commons and it’s elected members hold, not the ultimate legal power, but the only legitimate power and the government must have the support of the House.

Last week the Governor-General of Canada prorogued the session of Parliament to keep a government that it knew did not have the confidence of the majority of the elected members of the House of Commons from losing a vote.

The unelected representative of the Queen disregarded the opinion of the House.

Last week was awesome for Call-centre workers (i.e. Poli Sci majors) across Canada and Québec.  We had excitement, drama and intrigue in Parliament.  We saw our Head of State act like a Head of State and use her constitutional powers.

That, in our system, is not a good sign for democracy.

Minority governments always walk a tightrope. Stephen Harper tried to set the stage for the best time to hold our election. But that’s not unusual. Politicians and all people really try to work things to their advantage. But it didn’t work quite the way the Conservatives hoped. Yet again, another minority government.

This is not a good time for anyone moving into a position of government. Obama has his work cut out for him, picking up George Bush’s mess and the plummeting economy. But it’s the same here. Economy has moved to the forefront and Harper, with a minority government has a had lot. Yet, he has come across already as totalitarian and keeping such a tight leash on his MPs that they’re often crippled in making their decisions.

Then the new budget came, the tightening of the belt and the Conservatives seem to have made a fatal mistake. Many donations by companies to political parties have been severely limited. It makes sense because these factors could unfairly influence (bribe) a party in power to consider their wishes. When the Conservatives said they would cut public funding to the parties, it seemed the last straw. Here are the pertinent bits about funding from the Elections Canada website: http://www.elections.ca/content

The legislation was rooted in the belief that the primary source for contributions to political parties and candidates should be individuals giving relatively small amounts, as opposed to larger donations. The new regulations, therefore, stipulated that each elector could contribute up to a total of $5,000 a year to the electoral district associations, nomination contestants and candidates of a registered political party, while donations to these entities from corporations and trade unions were limited to $1,000. Furthermore, while individuals could contribute directly to the registered party, corporations and unions could not. To police the new rules, the act also stipulated that candidates and parties should disclose contribution information within a set period of time after an election, and leadership contestants should do so during and after a leadership contest.

As a counterbalance to the new contribution limits, however, Bill C-24 also introduced significant ongoing public financing for political parties. These provisions entitled any party receiving a minimum percentage of the popular vote in a general election to an annual public allowance proportional to its share of votes. The concept was not new – both the Barbeau Committee in 1966 and the Lortie Commission in 1992 acknowledged that funding for political parties through direct public subsidies was a good idea. Bill C-24 introduced annual allowances, recognizing that parties should be compensated for the loss of their customary funding stream from large corporate and union donations – and that the political party is arguably the focal point of a vibrant and viable democratic system.

Oops, the parties really didn’t like that. But there was some fast backtracking by the Conservatives and they said they would not lower public funding. But since the Liberals and NDP have tossed in their lot, they’re now steaming ahead saying there wasn’t a good economic package. And we’re off to the races.

Now the Bloc has thrown in with the Liberals and NDP to form a coalition government. But compare the Bloc to Judas or any other turncoat. They’re in it for themselves, not for the good of Canada. It’s the one biggest flaw in the coalition package. I think there should be a bill against allowing a party to run that has no federal or countrywide interests because the Bloc doesn’t care about any province but Quebec and they’re happy to use everything to their own advantage. Splitting up Canada doesn’t bother them because they think it will make Quebec stronger, not seeing the big shark that waits south of the border to gobble up the pieces of a dismembered nation.

They can be trusted to support a coalition as long as it serves them. Harper and the Conservatives are now taking out ads saying the other parties are conniving, stealing the leadership of the country, undermining our democracy. Though these moves are far from common, there is room in our constitution for such a coalition. I’m willing to see what happens. After all, Italy has had to function this way quite a few times. What I’m not for is public tax dollars going to any campaign for or against the coalition. The ads coming out that I couldn’t care less about better not be using public money but then if the parties are publicly funded, I guess it is, one way or the other.

The one thing all the political parties know is that if we went to another election we would make two records, The most federal elections in the shortest number of years, and the lowest voter turnout in Canada’s history. I for one don’t want to see more campaigning. I’m sick of it and campaigning for/against the coalition is not going to endear me to any party.

Yet the majority of Canadians aren’t paying attention to the fact that this coalition is in effect more democratic. Canadians are used to voting in a winning party, and seeing that party govern. They in effect believe it is in their hands to democratically elect their executive government. This is a misconception, for it is not the people, but the members of parliament and ultimately the Governor General, who choose the government. Unlike America, our executive is responsible to our legislative branch. Harper came out with an unacceptable confidence motion, the bill didn’t pass, and since we do not have fixed elections, it is a choice between going to the polls or having the opposition parties form a coalition.

The debate over the legality of forming these sorts of coalitions was solved with the Byng-King affair. Canada’s constitution relies heavily on unwritten conventions. Conventions are produced through a series of precedents. The Byng-King affair has set the precedent regardless of that particular coalitions failure to remain unified. This forthcoming coalition may very well show that a stable coalition is possible, indeed in my opinion will, given the plethora of coalitions that have governed successfully in Europe since (and not before) the time of the Byng-King Affair. In either event, Michaelle Jean will not find it hard to find justification for allowing this coalition to govern.

Yet in politics it is perception that matters. As I already have mentioned, Canadians have it in their minds that they are electing the executive government when they go to the polls. This is no doubt in part a symptom of our keen interest in American politics, which pour across the border via the media, a country where the citizens do in fact have a more direct say in who fills the Presidency. It is through this mode of thinking that the ‘Three Stooges’ analogy is spreading like wildfire, and hurting the Liberals.

Not adding to the Liberal image is the fact that this coalition is coming amidst a world economic crisis. This is something the Liberals with have to wrestle with alongside a precarious coalition AND a leadership race. When the next election is called, voters will be remembering these issues, and whatever Harper had done to provoke them, will be old news. The ideal Liberal plan would have been to threaten Harper with a coalition until he back-pedalled on the funding clause, and then back down. Now, instead of reaping the political benefits of multiple Conservative deficits, and instead of building the the trust of Canadians under the helm of a new Charismatic leader (i.e. Ignatieff), they are risking permanently tarnishing their party image.

As a Student of Canada’s Constitution

Notwithstanding all that’s been said, this coalition could be a blessing in disguise for the cause of democratic representation. The coalition, if successful, has the opportunity to lay much groundwork for a move towards proportional representation in Canada. A successful coalition will no doubt rekindle debate about our outdated electoral system and, if the political will is there, maybe even induce left-leaning parties to bring such constitutional reforms back to the fore. Indeed, if I am right in predicting that the Liberal’s actions will help bring about a Conservative majority in the next election, the Liberals might think themselves permanently weakened, and in realization of this favor the aforementioned electoral reforms.

Most faith schools are either voluntary controlled (where all building expenses and running costs are paid for by taxpayers) or voluntary aided (where running costs are paid for by taxpayers and up to 90% of building costs are paid for by taxpayers).  In short, everyone, not just those of the faith who are allowed to attend the schools, pay for them.  We all pay, the churches call the shots, and a select faithful few get to attend.  Taxpayers pay the piper, but the clerics call the tune…

 It is also inappropriate for a school system paid for by taxpayers to play a role in espousing any one particular religion.  Religion is a personal matter and one for the family or place of worship, not for a state-funded vehicle designed to equip youngsters with the tools to think critically about the world.

Finally, faith-based schools are proxies for selectivity.  Recent studies, such as those by academics Rebecca Allen and Anne West this year and reports presented to Parliament several years ago, buttress the position that faith-based schools cream off the better elements; their intakes are often not reflective of the pool of children from the immediately surrounding area, and the percentage of children eligible for free school meals (ie poor kids) is less than in non-faith state schools.  Isn’t such selection what parents choosing fee-paying schools are criticised for playing into?

Where I grew up, educational segregation was constitutionally enshrined, and thus you either attended a Catholic school (where you had to be well-documented as such) or a Protestant school (for those whose papers weren’t in order, Protestants, Jews, Muslims and any others.)  It was weird and stupid, as is any faith-based segregation, but it was enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.  There is no such constitutional protection in England and therefore no reason why this archaic system should be protected the way it has been.

Calling the Canadian captive’s detention and upcoming war crimes trial a “complex and difficult situation,” lawyer Doreen Mueller said Ottawa has frequently advocated on Khadr’s behalf both “formally and informally.”

She cited diplomatic requests to get the Toronto native captured in Afghanistan better detention conditions, to have his youthful age taken into consideration and to have allegations of jailhouse abuse investigated.

Read the whole thing at The Star

Oh they asked, did they?  Well, since every other country but Canada has had citizens who were detained at Guantanamo returned to their countries of citizenship, I suggest we ought to have demanded rather than asked and that we ought not to have let up on our demands.

Khadr’s Canadian lawyers petitioned the court to order Prime Minister Stephen Harper to press the U.S. for Khadr’s repatriation, arguing judicial intervention was necessary because the government violated Khadr’s constitutional rights by being complicit in his abuse.

Good luck to Khadr’s lawyers with this case.  I’ll be watching and will follow up with the result.  Keeping my fingers crossed.

When the government refuses to take appropriate action to defend a citizen’s Constitutional rights, I think the Court has a duty to intervene.

Four months after the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess guns, its decision is under assault — from the right.

Two prominent federal appeals court judges say that Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, is illegitimate, activist, poorly reasoned and fueled by politics rather than principle. The 5-to-4 decision in Heller struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

The judges used what in conservative legal circles are the ultimate fighting words: They said the gun ruling was a right-wing version of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that identified a constitutional right to abortion. Justice Scalia has said that Roe had no basis in the Constitution and amounted to a judicial imposition of a value judgment that should have been left to state legislatures.

Comparisons of the two decisions, then, seemed calculated to sting.

“The Roe and Heller courts are guilty of the same sins,” one of the two appeals court judges, J. Harvie Wilkinson III, wrote in an article to be published in the spring in The Virginia Law Review.

Similarly, Judge Richard A. Posner, in an article in The New Republic in August, wrote that Heller’s failure to allow the political process to work out varying approaches to gun control that were suited to local conditions “was the mistake that the Supreme Court made when it nationalized abortion rights in Roe v. Wade.”

Sharp criticism of a recent Supreme Court decision by federal appeals court judges is quite unusual, though these two judges — both Reagan appointees — are more outspoken than most.

Judge Wilkinson, who sits on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., was recently considered for a spot on the Supreme Court. Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, is perhaps the most influential judge not on the Supreme Court.

Not all conservatives agree with the critics, of course. Robert A. Levy, a libertarian lawyer who was a principal architect of the victorious strategy in the Heller case, rejected the comparison to Roe.

The two sides in the Heller case claimed to rely on the original meaning of the Second Amendment, based on analysis of its text in light of historical materials. The amendment says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

The more liberal justices said the amendment protected only a collective right tied to state militias, thus allowing most gun control laws. The more conservative justices found an individual right and struck down parts of a District of Columbia gun control law.

In Judge Wilkinson’s view, the upshot of the court’s extensive historical analysis was that “both sides fought into overtime to a draw.”

Others said the quality of the combat was low. “Neither of the two main opinions in Heller would pass muster as serious historical writing,” Jack Rakove, a historian at Stanford, wrote on the blog Balkinization soon after the decision was issued.

The strong reaction from the right after Heller was preceded, with a sort of symmetry, by liberal support for an individual-rights reading of the Second Amendment. For much of the 20th century, the conventional view of the amendment had been that it only protects a collective right. (Warren E. Burger, after retiring as chief justice in 1986, called the individual rights view “one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word ‘fraud’ — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen.”)

But some prominent liberal law professors, including Laurence H. Tribe of Harvard, Akhil Reed Amar of Yale and Sanford Levinson of the University of Texas, have concluded, sometimes reluctantly, that the amendment in fact protects an individual right. Professor Levinson’s seminal 1989 article in The Yale Law Journal captured the tone of the enterprise. It was called “The Embarrassing Second Amendment.”

In an interview, Professor Levinson said, “The result in Heller is eminently respectable.” But he added that he understood why some conservatives were upset. “People say the Roe court was too interventionist,” he said. “So is the Heller court from that perspective.”

Judge Wilkinson’s basic critique is that the majority, like that in Roe, used an ambiguous text to impose its policy preference on the nation, at great cost to the democratic process and to local values. He assumed, as most experts do, that the decision would apply to the states.

“In both Roe and Heller,” Judge Wilkinson wrote, “the court claimed to find in the Constitution the authority to overrule the wishes of the people’s representatives. In both cases, the constitutional text did not clearly mandate the result, and the court had discretion to decide the case either way.”

Judge Posner built on themes in his recent book “How Judges Think,” which argued that constitutional adjudication by the Supreme Court is largely and necessarily political. The Heller decision, he wrote in The New Republic, “is evidence that the Supreme Court, in deciding constitutional cases, exercises a freewheeling discretion strongly flavored with ideology.”

Indeed, Judge Wilkinson wrote, “Some observers may be tempted to view Heller as a revenge of sorts for Roe” or “a sort of judicial tit-for-tat.” As Judge Posner put it, “The idea behind the decision” in Heller “may simply be that turnabout is fair play.”

Mr. Levy, who helped win Heller, said some conservatives wanted almost all decisions to be made by the political branches rather than the courts.

“But these are constitutional rights,” Mr. Levy, now chairman of the Cato Institute, a libertarian research group, said of the rights protected by the Second Amendment. “They are not rights consigned to the legislature.”

The analogy to Roe, he went on, is misguided. There is no reference to abortion in the Constitution.

The Second Amendment, by contrast, indisputably protects a right to keep and bear arms, though there is sharp disagreement about the scope of the right. Mr. Levy said the natural reading of the amendment, one supported by historical materials, was that it protected an individual right.

Read the rest here

Well, the thing is, you can limit a Constitutional right such as the 2nd Amendment and it isn’t outside the bounds of reason to think that the Founders didn’t intend the right to bear arms to be individual.  There’s no need to hit on Roe v. Wade.  Unless you want to.

Look out women of America!  As always.  IMHO, Americans are far too prone to see their Constitution as the Bible and the Founding Fathers as gods.  Making me feel warm and fuzzy about the Canadian “living tree” analogy when it comes to constitutional interpretation.  From the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in  Reference re: Same-Sex Marriage:

… our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.  In the 1920s, for example, a controversy arose as to whether women as well as men were capable of being considered “qualified persons” eligible for appointment to the Senate of Canada.  Legal precedent stretching back to Roman Law was cited for the proposition that women had always been considered “unqualified” for public office, and it was argued that this common understanding in 1867 was incorporated in s. 24 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and should continue to govern Canadians in succeeding ages.  Speaking for the Privy Council in Edwards v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1930] A.C. 124 (P.C.) (the “Persons” case),  Lord Sankey L.C. said at p. 136:

 Their Lordships do not conceive it to be the duty of this Board — it is certainly not their desire — to cut down the provisions of the [B.N.A.] Act by a narrow and technical construction, but rather to give it a large and liberal interpretation so that the Dominion to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, may be mistress in her own house, as the Provinces to a great extent, but within certain fixed limits, are mistresses in theirs. [Emphasis added by the Court.]

A large and liberal, or progressive, interpretation ensures the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada’s constituting document.  By way of progressive interpretation our Constitution succeeds in its ambitious enterprise, that of structuring the exercise of power by the organs of the state in times vastly different from those in which it was crafted.  For instance, Parliament’s legislative competence in respect of telephones was recognized on the basis of its authority over interprovincial “undertakings” in s. 92(10)(a) even though the telephone had yet to be invented in 1867:  Toronto Corporation v. Bell Telephone Co. of Canada, [1905] A.C. 52 (P.C.).  Likewise, Parliament is not limited to the range of criminal offences recognized by the law of England in 1867 in the exercise of its criminal law power in s. 91(27):  Proprietary Articles Trade Association v. Attorney-General for Canada, [1931] A.C. 310 (P.C.), at p. 324. Lord Sankey L.C. noted in the Persons case, at p. 135, that early English decisions are not a “secure foundation on which to build the interpretation” of our Constitution.  We agree. 

Chuck: Uh, no prob, eh?  Did you use the glycerine or onions?

Steve: You hoser, glycerine. I wouldn’t put a Harper-sanctioned gmo’d crop onion near me!  But ya, eh, wasn’t it great with all the apples around, like, um, i was gonna have a six pack for Phontaine and his buddies so I could take them on a Starlight Tour after.

Chuck: Like, how come you didn’t, eh?

Steve: Cuz I pooed my pants.  I was afraid of something going wrong.

Chuck: Ya, like I did the same.  My arse was pretty raw by the end of it.

Steve: Ha, y’ah.  Guess they didn’t know who it was, you know, like it was the Phantom Poo.   Well, like, take off and have a Happy Canada Day, eh?

Oh those zany politicians!  Imagine the whole Apologee-willikers Bill going down at the same time Mohawk Clan Mother elders were unlawfully arrested, detained, roughed up and one suffered a trauma induced heart attack while trying to cross the fictional Canadian/U.S, border.  Fucking asswipes.

PLEASE DONATE TO MOHAWK NATION NEWS TO STAND AGAINST THIS INJUSTICE.