In defiance of homophobic legislation in India that provides a punishment of up to ten years in jail for being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered, hundreds of gay rights activists have held the first widespread pride parades in India's history (there had been a couple small events in Calcutta in the last couple years). Good on them. What is sad is that many of those brave individuals who turned out felt the need to wear masks to hide their identity.
India's laws prohibiting homosexuality are a disgusting throwback to the era in which Imperial Britain imposed appalling Victorian moralizing on it's empire. The British Empire has many things to answer for, and the horrifying attitude toward GLBT folks is yet another one of them. I salute those with the courage to show up and show their pride. Straight society around the world needs to come to terms with the reality that gays, lesbians, bisexuals and trans folk exist, and are entitled to the exact same rights as every other person.
In many parts of the west, we like to congratulate ourselves on having a progressive attitude towards LGBT folks. The sad fact is that while in some countries (Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, South Africa and Norway) there is full formal equality for LGBT folks, even in those countries, deep undercurrents of homophobic hatred persist. When school children feel it is alright to use "you're so gay" as a put-down to mean stupid or worthless, something is deeply wrong. When people rely on ridiculous injunctions from a book more than 2000 years old (that also, by the way, condemns as abomination wearing clothes made of two kinds of fibre among other idiocies) to decide that being gay is abomination, something is wrong. When a person is allowed to declaim violent hatred under the thin guise of religion, something is wrong. Ultimately, formal legal equality is meaningless unless there is substantive society equality to go along with it. Until the day that no child grows up learning to hate someone on the basis of a biologically determined reality, until the day that there is no danger of another murder like that of Brandon Teena or Matthew Sheppard, the work isn't finished.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 205
Monday, June 30, 2008
Saturday, June 28, 2008
A Travesty of Democracy in Zimbabwe
Robert Mugabe was once a man to be respected and admired. He was a revolutionary who led the people of Zimbabwe to overthrow white minority rule, and opposed transnational capitalism. Unfortunately, Mugabe has degenerated into yet another violent tyrant, confirmed by the process leading up to the presidential runoff election held yesterday. Mugabe's thugs attempted to terrorize the population into turning out to vote, and to vote for Mugabe. In an incredible act of courage, the people have defied Mugabe, and stayed home in droves. The outcome of the election is not in doubt, and has not been since the unconscionable delay in releasing the results of the first round of the presidential elections in May, that opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai should have won outright, and yet still the ZEC (the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission) can't manage to release the results of this staged farce within one day. They need more time to falsify the results.
The people of Zimbabwe are entitled to much better than this. They have the right to a vote and a result that expresses their collective will, not some ridiculous vaudeville act masquerading as an election. The people of Zimbabwe, as do all citizens of the world, have a right to government of the people by the people for the people, and that is not what they are getting. I will not call for an armed intervention in Zimbabwe. War doesn't fix anything, and only leads to more suffering. However, the United Nations must impose carefully targeted sanctions, such as travel restrictions and bank account seizures, aimed only at Mugabe and his chief thugs in what is mockingly called a cabinet. The UN must also be sure that the sanctions imposed do not hurt the people of Zimbabwe. This is not their fault, and they should not have to suffer any further for Mugabe's despotic brutality.
Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, ought to be ashamed of himself for the stance he has taken during this crisis. He has refused to criticize Mugabe, and has tacitly lent him support. That is unbelievable in the leader of a democratic state, as South Africa is. Letting Mugabe escape without criticism is unbelievable. Frankly, this type of "quiet diplomacy" is a crock.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 206
The people of Zimbabwe are entitled to much better than this. They have the right to a vote and a result that expresses their collective will, not some ridiculous vaudeville act masquerading as an election. The people of Zimbabwe, as do all citizens of the world, have a right to government of the people by the people for the people, and that is not what they are getting. I will not call for an armed intervention in Zimbabwe. War doesn't fix anything, and only leads to more suffering. However, the United Nations must impose carefully targeted sanctions, such as travel restrictions and bank account seizures, aimed only at Mugabe and his chief thugs in what is mockingly called a cabinet. The UN must also be sure that the sanctions imposed do not hurt the people of Zimbabwe. This is not their fault, and they should not have to suffer any further for Mugabe's despotic brutality.
Thabo Mbeki, president of South Africa, ought to be ashamed of himself for the stance he has taken during this crisis. He has refused to criticize Mugabe, and has tacitly lent him support. That is unbelievable in the leader of a democratic state, as South Africa is. Letting Mugabe escape without criticism is unbelievable. Frankly, this type of "quiet diplomacy" is a crock.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 206
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Dion Defends Carbon Tax
So yesterday the Liberals finally released some of the details of their carbon tax plan. The key to it is offsetting income and corporate tax cuts of $15 billion. Stephane Dion claims that the Liberal plan will be "good for the environment and good for the economy — good for the planet, good for the wallet." He also pledges that under his plan the Auditor General will examine the numbers every year to ensure that the tax remains revenue neutral.
This is ridiculous. A carbon tax must, in order to be effective, have an impact on the bottom line. By making the tax revenue neutral, that impact on the bottom line is eliminated for all but the poorest of the poor. The middle class will see something approaching neutrality, and the upper classes will actually get extra money from the tax cuts. The addition of corporate tax cuts to the package simply reinforces the fact that Dion's plan will accomplish nothing but a wealth transfer from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. Dion's plan is much more along the lines of from each according to his inability and to each according to his excess wealth. Dion is camouflaging a massive give away to the capitalist class as a measure to protect the environment.
Dion claims that his plan will price carbon in the first year at $10 per tonne, and rise to $40 per tonne by the fourth year. This is not nearly fast enough. The NDP's cap-and-trade plan will auction carbon quotas, with a floor price of $35/tonne in the first year. Dion further claims that the cost to the "average" home (without specifying what makes an average home) will be about $225-250 per year. That is a lot of money for some families, particularly those in the lowest tax brackets, even if that number accurately reflects the cost. There will also be many poor families living in rural areas who have to pay much higher added costs, for example struggling farm families who need to fuel their tractors.
The specific breakdown in the income tax cuts is as follows:
The Liberal plan also does nothing to help Canadians make the switch to zero-carbon or low-carbon lifestyles. Because of "revenue neutrality" there are no additional funds to pay for beefed-up public transit, subsidies for the purchase of ultra-low emission vehicles, the development of green renewable energy generation or the retraining of workers in fields that will be adversely affected by any shift in consumer behaviour. Though I suppose that isn't really an issue, since this plan won't produce a shift in behaviour, since it won't negatively impact the bottom line for anyone but the poorest of the poor. And I'm pretty sure the Liberals don't want it to have much of an effect either. After all, they were in power for years after signing the Kyoto Protocol, and sat on their hands while emissions went up and up. Liberal green-washing is just as pathetically transparent as the green-washing the the oil companies are trying to do. I hope that Canadians have the sense to see through it. No, the Conservatives aren't any better, but they really aren't much worse at this point.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 215
This is ridiculous. A carbon tax must, in order to be effective, have an impact on the bottom line. By making the tax revenue neutral, that impact on the bottom line is eliminated for all but the poorest of the poor. The middle class will see something approaching neutrality, and the upper classes will actually get extra money from the tax cuts. The addition of corporate tax cuts to the package simply reinforces the fact that Dion's plan will accomplish nothing but a wealth transfer from the poorest of the poor to the richest of the rich. Dion's plan is much more along the lines of from each according to his inability and to each according to his excess wealth. Dion is camouflaging a massive give away to the capitalist class as a measure to protect the environment.
Dion claims that his plan will price carbon in the first year at $10 per tonne, and rise to $40 per tonne by the fourth year. This is not nearly fast enough. The NDP's cap-and-trade plan will auction carbon quotas, with a floor price of $35/tonne in the first year. Dion further claims that the cost to the "average" home (without specifying what makes an average home) will be about $225-250 per year. That is a lot of money for some families, particularly those in the lowest tax brackets, even if that number accurately reflects the cost. There will also be many poor families living in rural areas who have to pay much higher added costs, for example struggling farm families who need to fuel their tractors.
The specific breakdown in the income tax cuts is as follows:
- Tax Bracket 1 (first $37 885 of taxable income) - 1.5% cut
- Tax Bracket 2 ($37 885 - 75 769) - 1% cut
- Tax Bracket 3 ($75 769 - $123 184) - 1% cut
The Liberal plan also does nothing to help Canadians make the switch to zero-carbon or low-carbon lifestyles. Because of "revenue neutrality" there are no additional funds to pay for beefed-up public transit, subsidies for the purchase of ultra-low emission vehicles, the development of green renewable energy generation or the retraining of workers in fields that will be adversely affected by any shift in consumer behaviour. Though I suppose that isn't really an issue, since this plan won't produce a shift in behaviour, since it won't negatively impact the bottom line for anyone but the poorest of the poor. And I'm pretty sure the Liberals don't want it to have much of an effect either. After all, they were in power for years after signing the Kyoto Protocol, and sat on their hands while emissions went up and up. Liberal green-washing is just as pathetically transparent as the green-washing the the oil companies are trying to do. I hope that Canadians have the sense to see through it. No, the Conservatives aren't any better, but they really aren't much worse at this point.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 215
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Carbon tax vs. Cap-and-Trade vs. Do Nothing
As we move into the summer BBQ circuit/silly season in the world of Canadian politics, I thought I ought to take a gander at the proposals the main parties are making to control global climate change resulting from greenhouse gas emissions, and particularly carbon dioxide. I say control because there is a snowball's chance in Hell that we can stop it now. All we can hope to do is limit it to non-disastrous levels, say making sure that the oceans don't rise enough to submerge every island state in the world.
Since in this country it takes a proposal from the Liberals to get the media interested in anything, I will start with the Liberal position on the issue. They have decided that their approach to the problem is going to be a carbon tax, a la British Columbia or some of Europe's right-wing governments. This is a tax that the Conservatives have unhelpfully dubbed a "tax on everything." Typically inaccurate, but punchy. This tax is essentially targeted at the demand end of supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent carbon-intensive activities. This tax will increase the costs of goods ranging from home heating oil to motor vehicles to plastic wrap, in essence anything produced through CO2 intensive means, or putting out a substantial amount of carbon dioxide when used. The Liberals further say that their plan will be revenue neutral, that is the government will reduce other taxes, principally the income tax, to make up for the hit from the carbon tax. My experience growing up during the Mike Harris years in Ontario makes me automatically suspicious any time I hear the wwords "revenue neutral". After all, the amalgamation of Toronto was supposed to be revenue neutral, but the city is still trying to climb out of the massive hole created by amalgamation and downloading of social services.
The Liberal plan will jack up the price of many essentials for working class families, such as transportation and food (since food will cost more to transport). These same families will get very little back from an income tax cut, because they pay relatively little income tax to begin with. The supposed relief from the income tax cut will not even reach the poorest people, who don't earn sufficient money to pay income tax in the first place, but will take a ding in their already meager budgets from the costs added by the carbon tax. I can't support this plan because it is regressive, and will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, while passing on yet more money to the bourgeoisie.
Next, there is the NDP plan. The NDP calls for the creation of a cap-and-trade system, in which hard targets will be imposed, and companies doing better than their carbon quota will be able to sell their excess to companies exceeding their quota. This is the plan used by the European Union as a whole, as well as a number of other states party to the Kyoto Protocol. The levels of CO2 allowed would be reduced year by year, bringing emissions down. This plan is focused on the supply end of the supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent the production of carbon intensive products by companies and the development of new green technology. Further, the plan sells a company their quota of carbon dioxide for the year, bringing in about $2.5 billion per year according to NDP estimates. This money would then be put into a fund to develop green energy sources, worker retraining (to adjust to changes in the economy in the transition to post-carbon) and public transit.
This plan strikes me as much better, because it puts the burden on industry and business first, rather than setting the whole weight of the burden on the consumer. It also acknowledges that government action beyond fiscal policy levers is going to be needed in order to cope with the problem. I am not crazy about emissions trading, but to simply go straight to cap and no-trade would simply never get enacted. There will still be an increased burden on the poor, but there won't be a transfer of wealth to the capitalist class, and there will be measures to help ameliorate that burden, like expanding public transit to provide an alternative to private vehicles. This plan also wouldn't impose an extra cost on home heating, which is important in a cold country like Canada.
And then we have the Conservative plan, which calls for intensity targets and that's it. Blech. There is nothing good to say about this way of addressing the problem. An intensity target of a 25% cut means nothing if activity increases by that same 25%, and it means worse than nothing if activity grows more than that. For example, the government might tell the oil patch that it has to reduce carbon-per-barrel of oil by 25%, but production is expanding by well more than 25%, which means that not only will emissions not decrease, they will actually increase. The Conservative do-nothing plan has been rightly denounced as a fraud by every environmentalist from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down. This plan is merely a smokescreen to make a government that doesn't believe the science of global climate change look like it is doing something.
Hopefully Canada can have a meaningful discussion on this subject, but the Conservatives seem dead set on doing everything they can to prevent that, starting with their idiotic attack ads on the Liberal's "tax on everything." The CPC can't have much respect for Canadians, and they have proven that they have no interest in governing in the public interest, simply in their own interest. Here's hoping Canadians see sense, the Liberals grow a spine, and we have an election when the House comes back in the fall.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 217
Since in this country it takes a proposal from the Liberals to get the media interested in anything, I will start with the Liberal position on the issue. They have decided that their approach to the problem is going to be a carbon tax, a la British Columbia or some of Europe's right-wing governments. This is a tax that the Conservatives have unhelpfully dubbed a "tax on everything." Typically inaccurate, but punchy. This tax is essentially targeted at the demand end of supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent carbon-intensive activities. This tax will increase the costs of goods ranging from home heating oil to motor vehicles to plastic wrap, in essence anything produced through CO2 intensive means, or putting out a substantial amount of carbon dioxide when used. The Liberals further say that their plan will be revenue neutral, that is the government will reduce other taxes, principally the income tax, to make up for the hit from the carbon tax. My experience growing up during the Mike Harris years in Ontario makes me automatically suspicious any time I hear the wwords "revenue neutral". After all, the amalgamation of Toronto was supposed to be revenue neutral, but the city is still trying to climb out of the massive hole created by amalgamation and downloading of social services.
The Liberal plan will jack up the price of many essentials for working class families, such as transportation and food (since food will cost more to transport). These same families will get very little back from an income tax cut, because they pay relatively little income tax to begin with. The supposed relief from the income tax cut will not even reach the poorest people, who don't earn sufficient money to pay income tax in the first place, but will take a ding in their already meager budgets from the costs added by the carbon tax. I can't support this plan because it is regressive, and will hurt the poorest and most vulnerable members of society, while passing on yet more money to the bourgeoisie.
Next, there is the NDP plan. The NDP calls for the creation of a cap-and-trade system, in which hard targets will be imposed, and companies doing better than their carbon quota will be able to sell their excess to companies exceeding their quota. This is the plan used by the European Union as a whole, as well as a number of other states party to the Kyoto Protocol. The levels of CO2 allowed would be reduced year by year, bringing emissions down. This plan is focused on the supply end of the supply-demand teeter-totter, aiming to disincent the production of carbon intensive products by companies and the development of new green technology. Further, the plan sells a company their quota of carbon dioxide for the year, bringing in about $2.5 billion per year according to NDP estimates. This money would then be put into a fund to develop green energy sources, worker retraining (to adjust to changes in the economy in the transition to post-carbon) and public transit.
This plan strikes me as much better, because it puts the burden on industry and business first, rather than setting the whole weight of the burden on the consumer. It also acknowledges that government action beyond fiscal policy levers is going to be needed in order to cope with the problem. I am not crazy about emissions trading, but to simply go straight to cap and no-trade would simply never get enacted. There will still be an increased burden on the poor, but there won't be a transfer of wealth to the capitalist class, and there will be measures to help ameliorate that burden, like expanding public transit to provide an alternative to private vehicles. This plan also wouldn't impose an extra cost on home heating, which is important in a cold country like Canada.
And then we have the Conservative plan, which calls for intensity targets and that's it. Blech. There is nothing good to say about this way of addressing the problem. An intensity target of a 25% cut means nothing if activity increases by that same 25%, and it means worse than nothing if activity grows more than that. For example, the government might tell the oil patch that it has to reduce carbon-per-barrel of oil by 25%, but production is expanding by well more than 25%, which means that not only will emissions not decrease, they will actually increase. The Conservative do-nothing plan has been rightly denounced as a fraud by every environmentalist from Al Gore and David Suzuki on down. This plan is merely a smokescreen to make a government that doesn't believe the science of global climate change look like it is doing something.
Hopefully Canada can have a meaningful discussion on this subject, but the Conservatives seem dead set on doing everything they can to prevent that, starting with their idiotic attack ads on the Liberal's "tax on everything." The CPC can't have much respect for Canadians, and they have proven that they have no interest in governing in the public interest, simply in their own interest. Here's hoping Canadians see sense, the Liberals grow a spine, and we have an election when the House comes back in the fall.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 217
Monday, June 16, 2008
Murder of de Menezes Back in the Headlines
The murder of Jean Charles de Menezes, a Brazilian electrician, by member's of London's Metropolitan Police in July 2005 in a Tube station, is back in the headlines as the inquest into the event is finally getting under way. That's right, the inquest is getting started three years after Mr. de Menezes was killed.
The police story at the time was that Mr. de Menezes resembled one of the fugitive terrorists from the then-recent July 11 bombings on the London transit system, was wearing bulky clothing and had jumped a turnstile, leading them to believe that he was about to detonate a suicide bomb. The bulky clothing story and the turnstile jumping have since been thoroughly debunked. Once again, the police lied about the circumstances of killing. As for resembling the missing bomber, de Menezes was Brazilian. About the only thing he had in common with the bomber was that he was brown-skinned. And that tells us a lot. Either members of some of the most elite squads of the Metropolitan Police are unable to tell brown-skinned people apart, or they were just out to shoot a brown man that day. While the first is disturbing, the second is absolutely appalling.
The Metropolitan Police as a corporate body has been convicted at trial of endangering the health and safety of Mr. de Menezes. What the inquest will determine is whether or not Mr. de Menezes was unlawfully killed. I don't see how the coroner's jury could possibly conclude otherwise. Mr. de Menezes was killed because he was brown, no other reason. What other possible reason could the police advance, given that their previous story has been completely debunked? Even if Mr. de Menezes did resemble a missing suspect, that is simply not grounds to shoot him. It might, if you stretch things, be reasonable and probable grounds for a short-term detention (i.e. an hour or two) to determine his identity, but these officers decided to shoot first and then try to avoid questions. If the jury comes back with the right verdict, these officers must face trial for second-degree murder.
Sadly, this case is just another demonstration of the need for fundamental reform in the way that society polices itself. The institutions of the police are too hopelessly racist, sexist and homophobic to deserve the trust of any marginalized groups in society, and are especially dangerous to any person that fits more than one of those bills. Civilians must have full and complete control of the police. The public must remember that the police serve us, not the other way around. We live in nominal democracies, and democracy gives us the tools to make a change, if enough people band together to demand that change. As Margaret Mead wrote, we must never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, people can change the world. And if even a small group can change the world given time, imagine how fast the people, united, could change it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 218
The police story at the time was that Mr. de Menezes resembled one of the fugitive terrorists from the then-recent July 11 bombings on the London transit system, was wearing bulky clothing and had jumped a turnstile, leading them to believe that he was about to detonate a suicide bomb. The bulky clothing story and the turnstile jumping have since been thoroughly debunked. Once again, the police lied about the circumstances of killing. As for resembling the missing bomber, de Menezes was Brazilian. About the only thing he had in common with the bomber was that he was brown-skinned. And that tells us a lot. Either members of some of the most elite squads of the Metropolitan Police are unable to tell brown-skinned people apart, or they were just out to shoot a brown man that day. While the first is disturbing, the second is absolutely appalling.
The Metropolitan Police as a corporate body has been convicted at trial of endangering the health and safety of Mr. de Menezes. What the inquest will determine is whether or not Mr. de Menezes was unlawfully killed. I don't see how the coroner's jury could possibly conclude otherwise. Mr. de Menezes was killed because he was brown, no other reason. What other possible reason could the police advance, given that their previous story has been completely debunked? Even if Mr. de Menezes did resemble a missing suspect, that is simply not grounds to shoot him. It might, if you stretch things, be reasonable and probable grounds for a short-term detention (i.e. an hour or two) to determine his identity, but these officers decided to shoot first and then try to avoid questions. If the jury comes back with the right verdict, these officers must face trial for second-degree murder.
Sadly, this case is just another demonstration of the need for fundamental reform in the way that society polices itself. The institutions of the police are too hopelessly racist, sexist and homophobic to deserve the trust of any marginalized groups in society, and are especially dangerous to any person that fits more than one of those bills. Civilians must have full and complete control of the police. The public must remember that the police serve us, not the other way around. We live in nominal democracies, and democracy gives us the tools to make a change, if enough people band together to demand that change. As Margaret Mead wrote, we must never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed, people can change the world. And if even a small group can change the world given time, imagine how fast the people, united, could change it.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 218
Friday, June 13, 2008
Sanity Makes a Comeback in the American Legal System
Carl Schurz had the idea right when he said "If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other." Today the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) recognized that and restored habeas corpus to the American legal system, by ruling that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have the right to challenge their imprisonment through the federal courts. After seven years, it is about damn time.
The right to challenge one's detention is a fundamental right in any society that is functionally democratic. Habeas corpus is the fundamental building block of a system of due process. No government has the right to hold anyone, without charge and without a chance to confront the evidence against them. The United States is on shaky enough ground about being considered a democracy, what with the rampant militarism, the outrageous xenophobia and so on, not to mention the two stolen elections and the limitation of electoral choice to effectively the blue and red wings of the Party of the Wealthy.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is important, a note of concern should be that the ruling was a 5-4 split decision. I would expect two votes in favour of stripping away a person's legal rights, from Antonin Scalia and his hand-puppet Clarence Thomas, but also joining in the dissent were Chief Justice of the United States Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The fact that all four of them thought that the rule of law was not worth protecting shows clearly that there is every danger of this decision being reversed after the next election, especially if McCain wins and gets to fill the next opening.
As a bit of a tangent, why is it that in the United States the right can get away with appointing dionsaurs to the bench, but the left is too lily-livered to appoint anyone who isn't a moderate to the Court? This is how the US wound up with a court that makes some outrageously bad decisions, and has a four-strong dissent in cases like this. At least in Canada the Liberals have sometimes appointed decent judges to the bench. Heck, Pierre Trudeau even appointed a few New Democrats (though not to the Supreme Court). When are the Democrats going to grow some spine, and appoint someone who might be on the left-wing of their party (which would still make them a centrist Liberal in Canada)? My guess is never.
Anyway, back to the main point, this is still good news. For seven years, the rule of law has been functionally suspended in the United States. This ruling doesn't bring it all back, but it is a good step in that direction. The next step is to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that founding document of the security state.
The United Kingdom, by the way, continues to traipse merrily down the path to dictatorship by lengthening the period for which people can be held without charge to 42 days. That is absolutely unacceptable. That is six-weeks. A month and a half. And the police claim that they need this time to put together cases. Well guess what, shoddy investigation technique is no excuse for denying people basic civil liberties. Britain seriously needs a new Magna Carta, this time to set out the rights of the people as against their government. If this law is allowed to stand, the British courts are not doing their job. They have a responsibility as the third branch of government to check the excesses of the other two branches, and if they let this government, a mockery of the name Labour, go forward with this, they have abdicated their claim to their positions.
Canada can't yet crow on this front either. We have legislation allowing for people to be tried in star chambers without the right to instruct their lawyer, know the evidence against them or confront their accusers. Our government holds a number of people indefinitely without giving them a trial. As of now that power can't be used against citizens of Canada, but if the government gets used to exercising this power against non-citizens for long enough, it will decide that it also wants to use it against citizens. And then we will be at the end of democracy.
Governments serve their people, not the other way around. Governments across the west have begun to forget that. Let's remind them.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 221
The right to challenge one's detention is a fundamental right in any society that is functionally democratic. Habeas corpus is the fundamental building block of a system of due process. No government has the right to hold anyone, without charge and without a chance to confront the evidence against them. The United States is on shaky enough ground about being considered a democracy, what with the rampant militarism, the outrageous xenophobia and so on, not to mention the two stolen elections and the limitation of electoral choice to effectively the blue and red wings of the Party of the Wealthy.
While this ruling by the SCOTUS is important, a note of concern should be that the ruling was a 5-4 split decision. I would expect two votes in favour of stripping away a person's legal rights, from Antonin Scalia and his hand-puppet Clarence Thomas, but also joining in the dissent were Chief Justice of the United States Roberts, and Samuel Alito. The fact that all four of them thought that the rule of law was not worth protecting shows clearly that there is every danger of this decision being reversed after the next election, especially if McCain wins and gets to fill the next opening.
As a bit of a tangent, why is it that in the United States the right can get away with appointing dionsaurs to the bench, but the left is too lily-livered to appoint anyone who isn't a moderate to the Court? This is how the US wound up with a court that makes some outrageously bad decisions, and has a four-strong dissent in cases like this. At least in Canada the Liberals have sometimes appointed decent judges to the bench. Heck, Pierre Trudeau even appointed a few New Democrats (though not to the Supreme Court). When are the Democrats going to grow some spine, and appoint someone who might be on the left-wing of their party (which would still make them a centrist Liberal in Canada)? My guess is never.
Anyway, back to the main point, this is still good news. For seven years, the rule of law has been functionally suspended in the United States. This ruling doesn't bring it all back, but it is a good step in that direction. The next step is to get rid of the PATRIOT Act, that founding document of the security state.
The United Kingdom, by the way, continues to traipse merrily down the path to dictatorship by lengthening the period for which people can be held without charge to 42 days. That is absolutely unacceptable. That is six-weeks. A month and a half. And the police claim that they need this time to put together cases. Well guess what, shoddy investigation technique is no excuse for denying people basic civil liberties. Britain seriously needs a new Magna Carta, this time to set out the rights of the people as against their government. If this law is allowed to stand, the British courts are not doing their job. They have a responsibility as the third branch of government to check the excesses of the other two branches, and if they let this government, a mockery of the name Labour, go forward with this, they have abdicated their claim to their positions.
Canada can't yet crow on this front either. We have legislation allowing for people to be tried in star chambers without the right to instruct their lawyer, know the evidence against them or confront their accusers. Our government holds a number of people indefinitely without giving them a trial. As of now that power can't be used against citizens of Canada, but if the government gets used to exercising this power against non-citizens for long enough, it will decide that it also wants to use it against citizens. And then we will be at the end of democracy.
Governments serve their people, not the other way around. Governments across the west have begun to forget that. Let's remind them.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 221
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Industry Canada Busted Trying to Censor Wikipedia
Michael Geist, a specialist in Internet law at the University of Ottawa Law School, brought to public attention on June 4th an effort by Industry Canada to buff up the Wikipedia entry on Industry Minister Jim Prentice. Their edits included ridiculous praise of Prentice and speculation that he is in good position to be the next leader of the Conservative Party of Canada. More important and insidious, they attempted to get rid of references to Conservative efforts to introduce a clone of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act from the United States. Fortunately, Mr. Geist tracked the IPs of the edits, and the Wikipedia community has restored the information that was deleted. This seems like a classic example of the Streisand Effect.
Do the Conservatives (and I say Conservatives because the only people with the motivation to do this are members of Prentice's political staff at Industry Canada) really think no one will notice when they pull this kind of stunt? There are tools on Wikipedia specifically to track who makes edits to avoid exactly this kind of situation. Did they not know this because Conservatives are Luddites (of the Marjorie "I Don't Use Facebook But I Think It's Dangerous" LeBreton variety)? Or did they think they could get away with it because they think we're all stupid? Either way, it isn't a good thing. Just another indication that this government has no respect for transparency or accountability, and that it lacks simple common sense (seriously, if you are going to do this, take your laptop to Starbucks which has a different IP address).
This government is undemocratic, anti-constitutional (since they plan to ignore the private member's bill on climate change passed on June 4), warmongering and tyrannical. And yet they continue to poll 30%+ support. What needs to happen for Canadians to wake up and smell the coffee? If Americans are waking up, and about ready to give their most egregious liberals the boot, why can we not do the same?
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 229
Do the Conservatives (and I say Conservatives because the only people with the motivation to do this are members of Prentice's political staff at Industry Canada) really think no one will notice when they pull this kind of stunt? There are tools on Wikipedia specifically to track who makes edits to avoid exactly this kind of situation. Did they not know this because Conservatives are Luddites (of the Marjorie "I Don't Use Facebook But I Think It's Dangerous" LeBreton variety)? Or did they think they could get away with it because they think we're all stupid? Either way, it isn't a good thing. Just another indication that this government has no respect for transparency or accountability, and that it lacks simple common sense (seriously, if you are going to do this, take your laptop to Starbucks which has a different IP address).
This government is undemocratic, anti-constitutional (since they plan to ignore the private member's bill on climate change passed on June 4), warmongering and tyrannical. And yet they continue to poll 30%+ support. What needs to happen for Canadians to wake up and smell the coffee? If Americans are waking up, and about ready to give their most egregious liberals the boot, why can we not do the same?
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 229
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
Obama Secures Democratic Party Nomination
Today Barack Obama secured the nomination of the Democratic Party for the Presidency of the United States. This is a historic moment, with the first black person to secure the nomination of one of the two major parties in the United States of America. Obama has broken barriers and brought hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of new voters into the process.
Obama also gave a phenomenal speech tonight. There is only one orator like him in any given generation, and he may be able to mobilize the country, if the Republicans aren't able to drag him down into the mud. His call to seize the moment was hair-raising, and driving.
Hilary Clinton was deeply ungracious tonight. The race is over. She needs to admit that, endorse Barack Obama, and work on unifying the Democratic Party. What is most important at this stage is that John McCain not be the next President of the United States. The world cannot stand another American President who will recklessly spread war around the world. The world cannot stand a trigger happy President who wants to bomb Iran. Obama doesn't have the best policy in the world, but at least Obama believes in diplomacy, and the world needs diplomacy.
Now, the run-up to November begins.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 231
Obama also gave a phenomenal speech tonight. There is only one orator like him in any given generation, and he may be able to mobilize the country, if the Republicans aren't able to drag him down into the mud. His call to seize the moment was hair-raising, and driving.
Hilary Clinton was deeply ungracious tonight. The race is over. She needs to admit that, endorse Barack Obama, and work on unifying the Democratic Party. What is most important at this stage is that John McCain not be the next President of the United States. The world cannot stand another American President who will recklessly spread war around the world. The world cannot stand a trigger happy President who wants to bomb Iran. Obama doesn't have the best policy in the world, but at least Obama believes in diplomacy, and the world needs diplomacy.
Now, the run-up to November begins.
Days Remaining in Bush Presidency: 231
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
